No, the CDC did not just apologize and admit that this year's flu vaccine doesn't work

APV, could you tell me where to get the full article? I searched on it and all I could get were the first hundred words. The article lists it as a possibility. In addition, the article is from 1952.

PMID: 14910853
Allergy to viral and rickettsial vaccines. III. Influence of repeated inoculations on the acquisition of egg allergy

Quick question, fake medical student: Does the Roman numeral appear in the actual title? You wouldn't be tossing out something as "more recent evidence" that you haven't even read, now, would you?

Howsabout you type up some of the relevant text to help out those members of your audince who don't have institutional access from home?

The reference you provided demonstrates that even in a population protected against allergy (by tuberculosis infection), egg proteins in vaccines caused the development of dermal sensitivity to egg proteins.

Maybe that's why vaccine manufacturers have dramatically reduced the amount of egg protein in vaccines over the past 63 years, to the point where there is too little in most influenza vaccines to sensitize even a 300 gram guinea pig, much less a human.

APV/vinucube/Vinu Armugham -

Now that you've admitted making things up to support your argument, can you tell us why you did that? We get lots of people here who engage in this sort of dishonesty, so I'm hoping you can give us some insight into why folks like you do this.

Do you decide that your cause is just, so if you have to lie to further it, it's justified?

It's interesting. Though I will say it's unusual to see it coming from an engineer; engineers -- at least, good engineers -- are usually pretty honest, in my experience. Do you limit your dishonesty to this medical discussion, or do you attempt the same tactics at your job when you think the ends justify it?

Tell us a bit about your thought processes and philosophy.

Krebiozen #1010,

"Maybe that’s why vaccine manufacturers have dramatically reduced the amount of egg protein in vaccines over the past 63 years ..."

1. So the FDA and the vaccine makers have known for 63 years that food proteins in vaccines cause food allergy.
2. No studies have been conducted in 63 years to determine safe levels for these food proteins present in vaccines.
3. These food allergy experts did not get the memo or were kept in the dark?

Food allergy: an enigmatic epidemic.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23648309

APV, reading comprehension is not your strong point. The knowledge that egg allergies are a problem is why there are so few egg proteins in the vaccines.

Now where is the evidence the influenza vaccine kills as many kids as the disease? According to the news emergency departments are being swamped by those with severe flu symptoms, including children. So at the next weekly CDC influenza update there may be much for than just fifteen pediatric influenza deaths.

Why are you so in love with your "allergy" hypothesis that you ignore the actual devastation from the disease?

1. So the FDA and the vaccine makers have known for 63 years that food proteins in vaccines cause food allergy.

Protip, Vinu: As a design choice, a compact three-stage linear cascade to improve upon the performance of the same-old-shіt circuit just plain isn't going to work if you place the "begging the question" component first in the chain.

Vinu -

You made up lots of purported facts to support your position. You do not deny doing this. You're dishonest. You've forfeited the right to accuse anyone of anything.

Because you make stuff up.

APV:

So the FDA and the vaccine makers have known for 63 years that food proteins in vaccines cause food allergy.

No. Once again, you are drawing an unwarranted conclusion from insufficient data. The amount of egg protein was lowered as a precaution. Nothing in this thread can be construed as proof for your hypothesis.

Maybe that’s why vaccine manufacturers have dramatically reduced the amount of egg protein in vaccines

Maybe tapioca isn't necessarily kosher for Passover for the same reason as the trichinosis retconning of kashrus.

Oh, wait, have you forgotten all about the pressing need for a specification of the amount of residual "kosher tapioca" in vaccines?

@Vinu/APV

You have been shown to be a liar (eg pretending to be a medical student for one).

Now this raises an issue about the honesty of your comments here. To allow the discussion to progress, could you please explain why you lied and indicate which other statements of yours are deliberate lies.

Then people can deal with the remainder of your thoughts and opinions on the topic. Until then, it would be prudent for them to take the view that you are prepared to lie to achieve whatever your objective is, and so it raises casts great doubt upon the reliability and honesty of your posts.

APV,

No studies have been conducted in 63 years to determine safe levels for these food proteins present in vaccines.

How do you know this? Have you really read every single paper on the subject available on PubMed, every unpublished paper and all the vaccine manufacturers' research on the subject since 1933 when the first influenza vaccine was developed?

Are you aware of all the research into methods to reduce the amount of egg protein in influenza vaccines, such as this paper published 38 years ago?

APV,
Why would we see an epidemic of egg allergy now, when historically vaccines contained far more egg protein than they do now? In 1967/8 influenza vaccines contained 7.4 micrograms ovalbumin per mL, and smallpox vaccine contained 25.8 micrograms ovalbumin per mL.

APV,

Food allergy: an enigmatic epidemic.

I see no mention of vaccines at all, and the key points are (my emphasis):

The presence of IgE to food proteins is not sufficient to generate clinical reactivity; IgE clonality, reactivity to food components, and IgE affinity are important criteria to determine immune reactivity.

Food allergy is associated with Th2-skewed CD4+ T cells that express skin-homing markers, suggesting skin exposure as a risk factor for the development of food allergy.

Although food allergy has an important genetic component, environmental factors such as dietary factors (e.g. vitamin D) and the intestinal microbiota appear to play a critical role in disease susceptibility.

Immunotherapy by oral and other routes, together with the use of anti-IgE therapy, is being explored as a means of inducing desensitization or tolerance to foods.

I see nothing here to support your hypothesis.

I have always been a strong advocate of the annual flu shot. However, this year has left me with much reservation. After receiving the flu shot in October, I have two separate bouts of influenza in the past two months. (and I'm not elderly or high risk). I have read reports in the media that the 2014 flu shot is very low in effectiveness compared to prior years. I have two questions:

Why was the A Switzerland strain included in the Southern Hemisphere shot but not for North America? Every day plane loads of people travel between Southern Hemisphere and Northern Hemisphere countries. Wouldn't it be plausible that an illness that is spread through the air quickly make it to North America?

Secondly, if it was known in the spring that the shots being administered in the fall were very low in effectiveness, why weren't people getting the shot told of this? To go from an effectiveness rate of around 60-70% down to around 40% or so is a huge variation.

Things can mutate and change, but the implications of getting a flu shot combination wrong are incredibly serious. Tens or hundreds of thousands of people who did get the shot will get ill from the flu regardless while thousands more could very well die from it.

I might be seriously wondering if getting a flu shot is a great thing for the next flu season.

Vinu -

Do you wish medical researchers were more honest than you are?

Krebiozen,

#1019:
"How do you know this? Have you really read every single paper on the subject available on PubMed, every unpublished paper and all the vaccine manufacturers’ research on the subject since 1933 when the first influenza vaccine was developed?"

The FDA, Sanofi Pasteur and USP said there is no allergen spec. If you find studies that determined safe levels for the amount of food proteins in vaccines, that will be a bigger scandal.

#1020
"Why would we see an epidemic of egg allergy now, when historically vaccines contained far more egg protein than they do now? In 1967/8 influenza vaccines contained 7.4 micrograms ovalbumin per mL, and smallpox vaccine contained 25.8 micrograms ovalbumin per mL."

And, in 2009:
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2809%2902305-7/fulltext
"Since the 1997-1998 influenza season, 51 lots of vaccine have been tested. The brands and lots with the lowest level of ovalbumin were chosen for vaccination of egg allergic patients to avoid adverse events. The concentration of ovalbumin in the same brand varied from year to year (e.g. Flumist®: 005-0.8 μg/ml; Flushied®, 6.90-38.30 μg/ml; Fluarix®, 0.025-0.31 μg/ml; Fluzone®, 0.30-8.05 μg/ml; Fluvirin®, <0.01-0.55 μg/ml)."

So vaccines were causing food allergy as recently as 2008.
And,
1) We have not accounted for children being more atopic now.
2) We have not accounted for 50% increase in c-section births in the past two decades, resulting in more atopy.
3) We have not accounted for simultaneous administration of vaccines, where the food allergen immunogenicity can be increased by adjuvants such as pertussis toxin and aluminum salts.

#1021
"I see no mention of vaccines at all ..."

Exactly. That's the key point. The FDA and vaccine makers have known that food proteins in vaccine cause food allergy for 63 years. In a professional/scientific/open endeavor, I would have expected something like this for example:

**********HYPOTHETICAL PARAGRAPH IN Berin MC et. al ********************
Historical Perspective

Food proteins in vaccines were a cause for food allergies in the 1950s (reference AA-BB).
Numerous studies (reference XX-YY) were conducted to determine safe levels for food proteins present in vaccines.
In the 1960s, the FDA established and began enforcing specifications created based on these studies. Vaccines are therefore no longer a cause of food allergies.
**********************End*****************************************************

But then again, if this was handled in a professional/scientific/open manner, maybe there would have been no need for the Berin MC et. al. paper, at all ...

AG1: Are you certain that your two episodes of illness, during two successive months, really were influenza? I'm not certain how your own doctor/Canadian doctors test for the presence of influenza in patients.

The decision was made in February 2014, for the strains which are selected for incorporation into the seasonal influenza vaccine used during the next Northern Hemisphere seasonal influenza season 2014-2015. The selected strains for seasonal influenza vaccine used in the Southern Hemisphere, are made in September:

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/02/who-keeps-same-strai…

You have to ask yourself if somewhat decreased protection against influenza (during a seasonal influenza season where there isn't a good match), is worth it. Most people decide that partial protection is better than no protection at all.

Things can mutate and change, but the implications of getting a flu shot combination wrong are incredibly serious.

Not really, no.

In a professional/scientific/open endeavor, I would have expected something like this for example:

**********HYPOTHETICAL PARAGRAPH IN Berin MC et. al ********************

That's a good one.

Anyway, rather than bizarrely fantasizing about what a paper could have said if only the authors had correctly attended to your blogs, you could do this and check back in afterward.

^ There should have been a "[sic]" after "Berin MC et. al," both for the obvious reason and because there were only two authors.

I'm sure this will be covered briefly in a practicum or something as APV progresses through medical school.

Secondly, if it was known in the spring that the shots being administered in the fall were very low in effectiveness, why weren’t people getting the shot told of this?

Even worse, December isn't fall in the relevant hemisphere.

IIRC, severe cases/confirmed deaths of influenza were reported out of Mexico which then spread to small areas of the United States ~ June, 2009...months past the decision was made for the actual strains of influenza to be incorporated into the Northern Hemisphere upcoming 2009-2010 seasonal influenza season vaccines...and far too late to substitute any strains in the tri valent influenza vaccine being manufactuered for the upcoming seasonal flu vaccine. That was the year that no healthy older adult was eligible for that additional single valent H1N1 vaccine, which was successfully manufactured and available in September 2009, and, which was provided only for young children and in very limited doses for older people who were deemed at extreme risk.

My husband and I were judged to be healthy adults, who were exposed to H1N1 outbreaks 40-50 years before. So, we were given the regular trivalent flu vaccine. Once enough H1N1 vaccine was available, it was provide to us ~ second week of January, 2010.

So far, there are no shortages of the trivalent, quadrivalent or high dosage seasonal influenza vaccines...if you want to see some frantic people scampering around to get the seasonal flu vaccine, watch for an announcement of a major shortage. It happens every year when there is seasonal influenza vaccine shortage...no matter how long that shortage is predicted to last.

So is the nature of some humans who are lax about getting flu vaccines...that is...until there are shortages.

O

APV:

So vaccines were causing food allergy as recently as 2008.

The FDA was taking a precaution. You are begging the question yet again. There is nothing here that can be construed as proof that vaccines cause food allergy.

The FDA and vaccine makers have known that food proteins in vaccine cause food allergy for 63 years.

See my comment above. You are distorting and twisting facts to support your idiotic hypothesis that vaccines cause allergy. Given that you have been given a study that shows that allergies are lower in the vaccinated, you are also a liar.

APV,

The FDA, Sanofi Pasteur and USP said there is no allergen spec.

Therefore vaccine manufacturers chuck in bucketfuls of whatever allergens they wish, and the FDA wring their hands in frustration, unable to refuse approval in the absence of specific regulations to forbid this?*

Anyway, I was responding to your claim that, "No studies have been conducted in 63 years to determine safe levels for these food proteins present in vaccines". There are 10,875 studies listed on PubMed that mention vaccines and allergy, going back to 1932. I don't believe you have read all these, and even if you had, not every scientific paper published is listed on PubMed.

If you find studies that determined safe levels for the amount of food proteins in vaccines, that will be a bigger scandal.

Why would it be a scandal if they have determined safe levels and voluntarily kept food proteins in vaccines below those levels? You haven't demonstrated that there are unsafe levels of food proteins in vaccines.

So vaccines were causing food allergy as recently as 2008.

You miss my point. If your claims are correct, vaccines must have been causing food allergy at least as far back as 1967, and long before, when purification techniques were even less effective, so they cannot possibly be responsible for the increase in food allergy we appear to be seeing today. Practically everyone got the smallpox vaccine a few decades ago, and it contained more egg proteins than almost all the influenza vaccines produced since 1997.

"I see no mention of vaccines at all …"
Exactly. That's the key point.

I don't quite understand how providing a citation that provides absolutely no support for your position is making a key point.

The FDA and vaccine makers have known that food proteins in vaccine cause food allergy for 63 years.

The only evidence you have provided of this ever happening is the Japanese incident, in which an unfortunate combination of genetics and poor manufacturing led to gelatin allergy in 1 in 100,000 people given the vaccine. How this is evidence that current vaccines are responsible for (allegedly) 1 in 13 children having food allergies, escapes me.

In a professional/scientific/open endeavor, I would have expected something like this for example:

You presuppose that your claims are correct. I think what has happened is that the possibility of vaccines causing allergic sensitivity was examined decades ago, and found not to be a problem.

* If Sanofi Pasteur are unaware of the potential for allergic reactions to vaccines, do not use processes for removing extraneous proteins from their vaccines, and have no internal guidelines for residual proteins in the final product, I will eat my keyboard.

Vinu -

Would it concern you if vaccine makers lied about what's in their vaccines?

I ask because you've admitted lying about what's in their vaccines in order to scare parents and to attract attention to your cause. Can you explain why your lying should be considered in a different light from that which you accuse the FDA et al of (sorry about the preposition thing)?

Krebiozen #1032,

Goldis et. al.:
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2809%2902305-7/fulltext
"There are significant variations in the egg protein content between the different brands and different lots of flu vaccines, varying by over 100-fold in some preparations."

There's a 100X variation in allergen content among vendors measured during the same time period. Don't you find that ridiculous? This is exactly what you can expect when there is no specification/enforcement.

"Therefore vaccine manufacturers chuck in bucketfuls of whatever allergens they wish ..."

Vaccine makers do not add bucketfuls of allergens, they just decided not to remove the bucketfuls that were already present from the growth media.

Wyeth Lederle that made Flushield, is a not a charitable organization. They were not going to invest a billion dollars in new equipment to clean up the allergens when there was neither market pressure nor a regulatory requirement to do it.

The general public thinks all flu shots are the same. They don't research, pick and choose vaccines based on content.
The common view is that a flu shot is a flu shot. Except that it is not.

This is my feeble attempt at bringing market pressure on vaccine makers.
https://mttmblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/flusum2014.pdf

Goldis et. al. performed the study because they were trying to find influenza vaccines that did not elicit a reaction. We know from the days of HG Wells, that elicitation doses were way more than sensitization doses.
So these vaccines that have enough allergen to cause elicitation, have more than enough to cause sensitization.

You are trying to defend the indefensible and you should know it.

"I will eat my keyboard."
GI mucosa exposure may cause you to develop a dermal sensitivity to your keyboard ...
Bad idea. We need your valuable posts ...

APV, so exactly how many children died from the influenza vaccines last year? Is it as many as the number of kids the actual disease killed this year?

There’s a 100X variation in allergen content among vendors measured during the same time period. Don’t you find that ridiculous?

Would you care to specify which one is the 100-fold variation? Is that a typo for FluMist? What exact relevance does data from 1997 to 2008 have to the present, when all vaccines are under 1.2 μg/ml? Was there a time trend?

Perhaps this is clarified in the version that runs across two pages, rather than the conference abstract.

There most certainly is something ridiculous here, but it's not what you were shooting for.

Is there a vaccine we can inject into this thread so that it becomes immune to additional troll posts and replies to trolls, or so that it has a stoke and goes into a persistent vegetative state?

Or can we infect the thread with enough VPD spores that it just up and dies?

Kevorkian?

Something. Please....

Narad #1036,

Krebiozen #1020 wrote:
“Why would we see an epidemic of egg allergy now, when historically vaccines contained far more egg protein than they do now? In 1967/8 influenza vaccines contained 7.4 micrograms ovalbumin per mL, and smallpox vaccine contained 25.8 micrograms ovalbumin per mL.”

That is why the 1997-2008 data is relevant.

"There most certainly is something ridiculous here, ..."
Forget LAIV Flumist.
Looking at the max. of the other ranges, we have 38.3 and 0.31.
Which is also >100X. There are many degrees of ridiculous in the vaccine industry we have created. Take your pick.

Come on, APV, how many kids did the influenza vaccine kill last year? You come to a blog article about the flu vaccine, tell us "vaccines bad", but then bring any concrete evidence that the vaccine is worse than the disease.

This has been a bad week. I bet you when the CDC updates its weekly report there will be more than fifteen pediatric deaths from flu. So give us the statistics on how deadly the flu vaccines are for children each year in the USA.

Correction: "but then do not bring any concrete evidence that the vaccine is worse than the disease."

Forget LAIV Flumist.
Looking at the max. of the other ranges, we have 38.3 and 0.31.
Which is also >100X.

NO, jackass. You lifted the fυcking difference from the abstract. Allow me to quote it for you:

"There are significant variations in the egg protein content between the different brands and different lots of flu vaccines, varying by over 100-fold in some preparations."

Did you really, really need another example of the dishonesty that suffuses your very being?

BTW, where did the values in your "feeble effort" come from, anyway? They can't come from the manufacturers, as your whole point is that they don't look at this shіt in the first place.

Narad,

#1041:
I quoted the same thing in #1034, so I don't know what you are screaming about ...

#1042: From the package inserts. The ovalbumin content for Sanofi Pasteur came from the manufacturer.

sadmar,

Is there a vaccine we can inject into this thread so that it becomes immune to additional troll posts and replies to trolls, or so that it has a stoke and goes into a persistent vegetative state?

If you find my, and others', replies to APV tedious, please feel free to ignore them, as I do your screeds. One man's meat....

#1041:
I quoted the same thing in #1034, so I don’t know what you are screaming about …

Whether this statement is literally true or not, it simply demonstrates again your utter ethical bankruptcy.

#1042: From the package inserts. The ovalbumin content for Sanofi Pasteur came from the manufacturer.

Who the hell do you "think" is responsible for writing the G-ddamned package inserts in the first place?

Narad #1045,

"Who the hell do you “think” is responsible for writing the G-ddamned package inserts in the first place?"

I meant Sanofi Pasteur does not include ovalbumin content on the PI and you have to request it from them. I posted their response in #532.

APV, where are the statistics showing that any influenza vaccine is more deadly to children than the disease? Has the vaccine killed as many kids as the disease this year: fifteen and rising.

Why are you ignoring those verified pediatric deaths from influenza? Are you really that heartless?

APV/Vinu Arumugham:

In #876, you said that Phuong Tang of Avantor told you that there is palm oil and coconut oil in their Polysorbate 80.

You lied.

Do you really think no one will bother to check your claims?

Why do you believe you can criticize the FDA when you are so deeply dishonest?

You might want to post a retraction, by the way. I don't think Avantor is too happy with you. Do you have the courage, or are you as cowardly as all those researchers you criticize?

OccamsLaser #1048,

Go to:
http://www.avantormaterials.com/rightnowtechintegration.aspx
Search for: polysorbate 80 4117

Click on:
Polysorbate 80- Product Code 4117, Product Regulatory Datasheet

Page 2 has:
"Allergen/Hypersensitivities Information: The products listed do not contain wheat, rye,
oats, barley, spelt, malt, triticale, gluten, other grains, soybean, eggs, yeast, canola, dairy
products, seafood products, peanuts, natural grape products, natural flavors, artificial flavors,
celery, lactose, sulfites, elemental sulfur, preservatives, MSG, disodium guanylate/inosinate,
artificial sweeteners, phenylalanine, additives, colorants, dyes, or natural rubber (latex).
Please be advised that the product is sourced from substances of vegetable (corn, palm,
sunflower, or coconut)."

APV, how many kids are killed by the influenza vaccine. The CDC updated the verified pediatric influenza mortality and it is now up to twenty one children this season!.

So while you are thrashing about on fictional allergy issues this week at least six more kids died from influenza. That is about one kid per day who will never ever grow up. I bet you are real proud now.

So, APV, how much more dangerous is influenza vaccination compared to the actual disease. Do tell us with some actual statistics.

Once again, APV, the point goes blasting over your head at mach speeds.
From your own comment.

Please be advised that the product is sourced from substances of vegetable

"Sourced from", NOT "contains".
It's like saying that plastic contains crude oil because that's what it's made from. It's inaccurate, to put it mildly.

Click on:
Polysorbate 80- Product Code 4117, Product Regulatory Datasheet this, Vinu.

You're welcome.

Vinu Arumugham:

You publicly stated that Phuong Tang of Avantor told you that "they have palm oil and coconut oil in their Polysorbate 80." That's a direct quote.

You then used this claim to attempt to frighten parents, writing,

"So you know what food allergies to expect in the next wave of the epidemic."

Of course, you know that you lied about that.

Do you think Phuong Tang and Avantor are a) happy, or b) unhappy about your spreading misinformation about them?

A direct, honest response would be refreshing.

I get it. Polysorbate 80 contains what it is sourced from through the wardrobe principle; i.e., a wardrobe, made of wood sourced from an apple grown in Narnia, itself contains Narnia (at least, sometimes). That's my theory, and it's mine.

I would recommend getting your shots from GSK or Bayer.

GlaxoSmithKline Dumps Live Polio Virus into Belgian Water
http://www.storyleak.com/pharmaceutical-giant-dumps-live-polio-virus-in…

GSK fined over vaccine trials; 14 babies reported dead
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/88922/gsk-lab-fined-$1m-over-t…

BAYER scandal - HIV Contaminated Drug - 1000's contracted HIV
http://youtu.be/cphkD-9NUe8

Here are two bonus articles for you. One regarding Aluminum in vaccines and the other pertaining to doses:
Aluminium overload leads to chronic fatigue syndrome, macrophagic myofasciitis and subcutaneous pseudolymphoma
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22425036

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

Adams makes the comment that these products are produced by "a corporation of felons". What I would like the author to do is address the comment that the pharmaceutical companies are criminal organizations. They have committed various criminal acts and have paid huge civil and criminal fines. In many cases they have doctored their studies, by omitting or including fraudulent data, and this is what people call science. To believe the studies, and claims of safety and effectiveness, produced by the very same companies selling these vaccines is insane.

Here are just two sources:

Big Pharma’s Big Fines (only in the last few years)
http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma

Drug makers have paid $8 billion in fraud fines
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-05/health-…

Holy carp! This thread is still going? I haven't gone back and read the 300-some comments since I last checked, but I'm going to assume that APV is still beating the same dead horse and has not conceded the he is wrong. Am I right?

Matt, what does that have to do with vaccines? Be specific.

Also, please tell us why it is better treat hundreds of kids with influenza instead of preventing that with a vaccine? By the way, this season at least twenty one children have been verified to have died from influenza this season. Why is that okay?

Oh, I just noticed Matt's comment #1055. I see it had too many links, none of them about any influenza vaccine. Especially since no influenza vaccine in the USA has adjuvants.

Oh, and the last link. Matt, do yourself a favor and use the search box at the top of the page to see of a paper your are spamming here has been discussed. Because the Miller/Goldman paper was the perfect example of how not to do statistics, especially when it involves cherry picking:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/16/vaccines-and-infant-mortal…

Also, they both forgot to clarify their conflicts of interests. Naughty, naughty.

OccamsLaser #1053,

"You publicly stated that Phuong Tang of Avantor told you that “they have palm oil and coconut oil in their Polysorbate 80.” That’s a direct quote."

Avantor's datasheet, in plain English states:
Please be advised that the product is sourced from substances of vegetable (corn, palm,
sunflower, or coconut).
They have a "do not contain" list of items and it does NOT include corn, palm,sunflower or coconut.
If their product is free of these items, why would they not be on the "do not contain" list?

"You then used this claim to attempt to frighten parents, writing,

“So you know what food allergies to expect in the next wave of the epidemic.”"

I stand by that assertion and have provided the facts behind it.
Parents must be frightened by what is present in today's vaccines.

"Do you think Phuong Tang and Avantor are a) happy, or b) unhappy about your spreading misinformation about them?"
How does quoting their publicly available documentation become "spreading misinformation"?

Julian Frost #1051,

Please explain why corn, palm, sunflower, or coconut are not on the "do not contain" list.

Twenty one kids that are dead, dead and still very dead. And, APV, you choose to ignore them. That is very sad.

So, exactly how many kids die from the influenza vaccine each year? Does it even come close to how many have died this early in the season?

Clarify sentence: Does it even come close to how many have died this early in the season from actually getting influenza?

Narad #1052,
http://www.jiaci.org/issues/vol17issue06/11.pdf
Chicken or the egg? Did cassava sensitization cause latex allergy or did latex sensitization cause cassava allergy?

With so many allergens in vaccines, we lose track of allergens and causality ...

Vinu Arumugham:

You write,

"How does quoting their publicly available documentation become 'spreading misinformation'?"

Can you read? I didn't say your quoting from Avantor's documentation was spreading misinformation.

I said you made an extremely specific claim: that Phuong Tang of Avantor told you directly that “they have palm oil and coconut oil in their Polysorbate 80.”

That's a lie, isn't it?

By telling that lie, you are spreading misinformation. And you can imagine how Avantor feels about that.

If you claim it is true, all you have to do is post the email from Phuong Tang where he tells you categorically that Avantor's Polysorbate 80 has palm oil and coconut oil in it.

By the way, do you know the difference between "can't be absolutely ruled out" and "definite?" If not, you might want to consult a dictionary after retracting everything you've posted. If you do, you are one of the most dishonest people I've ever come across.

Is "will be struck by lightning" on your personal "will not happen" list? That is, can you absolutely, positively rule it out? If not, by your logic, you will be struck by lightning.

You're not really an engineer -- at least, not a competent one. Engineers understand logic. And they're generally honest. You abuse logic, and you're dishonest.

Chris - Their safety and effectiveness are in quesiton, and I am very skeptical of a product produced by criminals, aren't you?

As for the kids, how do you know that these children didn't get the flu vaccine? Perhaps they did and still died. Or how do you know these kids are not immunocompromised and would have died even if they received the flu vaccine. It's also not clear if they died from the mutated H3N2 strain. Vaccination does not equal immunization.

It's too much to hope that this is the Matt, right?

I’m going to assume that APV is still beating the same dead horse and has not conceded the he is wrong. Am I right?

To my knowledge, FemtoThnk has not conceded any of its pronouncements. For example, polysorbate 80 still contains peanut oil (mebbe, liek opossmu).*

* Natural language? You be the judge.

@APV:

Please explain why corn, palm, sunflower, or coconut are not on the “do not contain” list.

Because vaccines don't contain them, dimwit. Did you not read my last comment? Just as plastics are made from crude oil but don't contain crude oil, vaccines are made from these substances but the processing means they don't contain them.

With so many allergens in vaccines, we lose track of allergens and causality

Yet again, you are begging the question. You have made all sorts of claims that vaccines contain allergens and induce allergies, including frankly nonsensical ones that the reason for the differing allergy rates for peanuts and sesame seeds between Israel and the UK can be explained by Israeli vaccines containing sesame seed oil and British ones containing peanut oil. The "evidence" you have provided in support can politely be described as circumstantial.
You got nothin'.

Matt,

Their safety and effectiveness are in quesiton, and I am very skeptical of a product produced by criminals, aren’t you?

Who precisely is questioning vaccines' safety and effectiveness? Any reputable scientists or doctors? You must surely be aware of all the independent studies on vaccines in countries all over the world that have found them to be safe and effective. Which drug companies have been found to have made false claims about vaccine safety and efficacy? What criminal convictions are you referring to?

I'm not denying that drug companies have behaved badly at times, making exaggerated claims, trying to push their products for conditions that the evidence doesn't support etc., but I see nothing to suggest the level of deception that would be necessary to make vaccines look safe and effective if they were not.

As for the kids, how do you know that these children didn’t get the flu vaccine? Perhaps they did and still died. Or how do you know these kids are not immunocompromised and would have died even if they received the flu vaccine. It’s also not clear if they died from the mutated H3N2 strain.

The point is that influenza kills people, including children. It isn't the mild illness that antivaccine zealots claim.

There is more than ample evidence that influenza vaccines are safe and effective. This systematic review of the efficacy of influenza vaccines in healthy children found that live vaccines are 83.4% effective and inactivated vaccines are 67.3% effective against similar strains. This study found that influenza vaccines are safe and effective even in children with respiratory problems. Neither study was carried out or funded by drug companies.

Vaccination does not equal immunization.

In the great majority of cases it does. We can prove this using blood antibody tests and by looking at the reduction in disease we see in vaccinated populations. In the first study I cited they found that vaccinated children were more than 80% less likely to get influenza than those not vaccinated. That's a huge difference.

Any reduction in the likelihood of getting influenza is well worth the very mild sore arm that is the worst side effect I have ever had from my annual influenza vaccine.

Matt: "Their safety and effectiveness are in quesiton, and I am very skeptical of a product produced by criminals, aren’t you?"

You still have not shown any of those links were related to influenza vaccines used in the USA. Vaccines that do not contain adjuvants. And are not polio vaccines used in other countries.

"As for the kids, how do you know that these children didn’t get the flu vaccine?"

Because historically 90% of verified deaths of children from influenza have not been vaccinated: CDC Reports About 90 Percent of Children Who Died From Flu This Season Not Vaccinated.

"Or how do you know these kids are not immunocompromised and would have died even if they received the flu vaccine."

I see you have no sympathy for children undergoing treatment for cancer. You must think they deserve to die from influenza, even if some pediatric cancer treatments are 90% effective. This makes you a very nasty person.

Now you need to come up with the PubMed indexed studies showing that any influenza vaccine used in the USA causes as much harm as the actual disease. A disease that has killed at least a hundred children in the last couple of seasons, and is already killed twenty one children.

Krebiozen repeat after me, "there are no scientific studies that prove cigarettes are harmful nor do they cause any disease. Moreover, there are no reputable doctors or scientists that have questioned their safety."

I am a skeptic. I question things. I don't believe what the government (FDA, NIH, CDC) tells me. I have been lied to in the past and abide by the precautionary principal. What was believed to be science at one time was later proven to be false many times over. Are vaccines in the same category? I don't know, but I as a parent will weigh the risks and rewards and make a decision about my health and that of my family.

Keep in mind that no one is anti-vaccine, but there are some parents that are skeptical about the current number of doses administered, and the contents of those vaccines. I think everyone wants safe and effective treatment, whether it be vaccines or any other means to combat disease.

@Matt - that's bullcrap. Plenty of folks shout that they are anti-vaccine from the highest mountains (just look over at AoA). When asked for even a single vaccine that they would consider safe, the answer is just deafening silence.

The old "pro-safe vaccine" argument is a fallacy as well - since everyone is pro-safe vaccine & at this point, no evidence has ever been provided that vaccines are anything other than safe and effective.

There is a huge difference is being a skeptic and being stupid - and you're just on the other side of the line with the tripe of yours.

Matt: "I am a skeptic. I question things. I don’t believe what the government (FDA, NIH, CDC) tells me."

Then why did you post those links to other "authorities" which had nothing to do with any American influenza vaccine?

"I don’t know, but I as a parent will weigh the risks and rewards and make a decision about my health and that of my family."

What will kind of evidence will you use to make those decisions? You posted a very bad article written by a computer scientist (Goldman) and journalist (Miller), two people who have no real medical or statistical training. Why are they more believable than any epidemiologist working for a public health agency?

Just tell us who you do trust? Make sure they are qualified and reputable.

"Keep in mind that no one is anti-vaccine, but there are some parents that are skeptical about the current number of doses administered, and the contents of those vaccines."

That number of vaccines being used was addressed in the first papers listed in Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence, it is titled "Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism."

Now go through the papers in that link and tell us exactly why we should not trust the methods and/or authors. Bring up valid point, and not something like "I don't like them" or "I don't like where they work."

@Matt

Keep in mind that no one is anti-vaccine

There are, actually, people who are anti-vaccine and proudly proclaim that they are anti-vaccine.

Matt,

Krebiozen repeat after me, “there are no scientific studies that prove cigarettes are harmful nor do they cause any disease. Moreover, there are no reputable doctors or scientists that have questioned their safety.”

Why would I repeat something that is demonstrably untrue and has been demonstrably untrue since 1956 when the British Doctors Study was published? That's an extremely foolish or disingenuous comparison. Where are the dozens of large well-designed studies showing that tobacco is safe?

I am a skeptic.

If you are who I think you are, you are no skeptic, you are a True Believer, a closed-minded fanatic who only believes the nonsense you read on antivaccine websites and dismisses anything that doesn't fit your preconceptions.

I question things.

Except the lies and shoddy science that support your prejudices, evidently.

I don’t believe what the government (FDA, NIH, CDC) tells me.

What about all the independent researchers all over the world who have found vaccines to be safe and effective? Are they all lying too?

I have been lied to in the past and abide by the precautionary principal.

What have the FDA, NIH, CDC lied about specifically?

What was believed to be science at one time was later proven to be false many times over.

Show me anything that was later proven to be false that was supported by the quantity and quality of evidence that supports the safety and efficacy of vaccines. If all the vaccine studies that prove efficacy and safety are wrong, the number of people who must be knowingly lying and conspiring to keep the lie going must be astronomical. I don't believe in such an enormous conspiracy and I think anyone who does is deluded.

Are vaccines in the same category? I don’t know,

Of course they aren't. I don't see how anyone can take a long hard dispassionate look at the evidence and come to the conclusions you do.

but I as a parent will weigh the risks and rewards and make a decision about my health and that of my family.

I think you have misread or misinterpreted the evidence and come to some very ill-advised conclusions that will put your children's health at serious risk. If you don't vaccinate your children, the best you can hope for is that they will grow up with no immunity to VPDs. Getting measles and other VPDs as an adult is no joke, so either they will be at constant risk of serious illness and death, and will have to avoid traveling outside the US, or they will have to get vaccinated. If your daughters have children they will have no protective antibodies from their mothers, and will be at grave risk of death or serious disability. What a great gift to your grandchildren.

Keep in mind that no one is anti-vaccine,

That's clearly not true. I have come across numerous people who claim that all vaccines are bad and even that contagious diseases are essential for good health.

but there are some parents that are skeptical about the current number of doses administered, and the contents of those vaccines. I think everyone wants safe and effective treatment, whether it be vaccines or any other means to combat disease.

Hopefully, yes. But the antivaccine movement is fundamentally dishonest, I have been through numerous vaccine websites and have found no end of blatant lies and obvious misinterpetations and distortions of the truth. No matter how many times I and others point out their lies they still keep telling them.

How is anyone supposed to make rational decisions when there is so much disinformation being peddled? Why are you contributing to the spread of misinformation instead of the truth?

OccamsLaser #1064,

That is why the correct scientific way to handle this, is to have a specification. Avantor says palm/coconut are used in the manufacture of their Polysorbate 80. They cannot guarantee the final product is free of those allergens. That is the purpose of providing an allergen statement.

Avantor could have said, our test sensitivity is say 1ng/ml.
Based on this test, perhaps they can claim that the allergen was not detected. But in the absence of such a spec., one has to assume allergens are present. We are not talking about a topical cream where you might suffer a little rash.
We are talking about injectables and life-threatening diseases. You cannot afford to make sloppy safety assumptions. You have to look at the worst case.
We know it takes only 8-18 ng/ml of casein to cause anaphylaxis.

APV, how many kids has the influenza vaccine killed this year?

The actual disease has been verified to be the cause of death of twenty one American children. So now, again, explain how the vaccine is just as deadly.

Or are you going to dismiss those deaths by saying they deserved to die because of imperfect immune systems? Which is ironic on how you go on and on about allergies.

Come on, APV, stop ignoring the real deaths from influenza! Are you that heartless?

Oh, wait, you are.

Krebiozen #1075,

"I don’t believe in such an enormous conspiracy and I think anyone who does is deluded."

The belief that the Earth was flat was not a conspiracy.
A large group of people could be wrong without a conspiracy.
Like the CIA group-think Iraq WMD. Many people blindly trust the FDA/CDC. If the FDA/CDC are wrong, then a lot of people are going to be wrong in their beliefs, without the need for a conspiracy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/does-the-vaccine-ma…

"Jackson’s findings showed that outside of flu season, the baseline risk of death among people who did not get vaccinated was approximately 60 percent higher than among those who did, lending support to the hypothesis that on average, healthy people chose to get the vaccine, while the “frail elderly” didn’t or couldn’t. In fact, the healthy-user effect explained the entire benefit that other researchers were attributing to flu vaccine, suggesting that the vaccine itself might not reduce mortality at all."

Julian Frost #1068,

Let's see if we can make this simpler. Consider just oats and palm. Avantor says oats are not used and thus the final product does not contain oats. Oats is listed in the "do not contain" list.

Palm is used in the manufacture of Avantor's Polysorbate 80.
You claim that the final product does not contain palm.

So, why is palm not listed along with oats in the "do not contain" list?

Krebiozen #1069,

" ...but I see nothing to suggest the level of deception that would be necessary to make vaccines look safe and effective if they were not. "

As I wrote in #656, the Cervarix vaccine trial involved injecting the control group with the Havrix vaccine or aluminum hydroxide. One vaccine is complex enough, why throw in another vaccine which is a complex variable into the study? Looks like deception/obfuscation?

Chris #1073,

"That number of vaccines being used was addressed in the first papers listed in Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence, it is titled “Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism.”

"too many vaccines
overwhelming the immune system"
Is just one aspect of too many vaccines.
Where are the studies showing the safety of multiple food allergens, multiple adjuvants AND vaccine antigens injected simultaneously in one sitting? That too on an increasingly atopic population. What happens with self-antigens, epitope spreading, with so much tissue trauma also at the same time?

Krebiozen #1075,

"What have the FDA, NIH, CDC lied about specifically?"

The FDA admits that they don't know how vaccines work.
Yet, they claim that "the benefits outweigh the risk".
If you don't even know how it works, how can you claim to know the benefits/risks?

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedPr…
"The exact immunologic mechanism by which ROTARIX
protects against rotavirus gastroenteritis is unknown .."

Please be advised that the product is sourced from substances of vegetable (corn, palm,
sunflower, or coconut).
They have a “do not contain” list of items and it does NOT include corn, palm,sunflower or coconut.

Oh, you're saying that the "Does not contain" list doesn't have those items on them. I see now.
The answer is likely that those documents are written by lawyers, not chemists. Given the way it's processed, I doubt that those substances are in there.

APV, you are talking utter bunkum.

“too many vaccines
overwhelming the immune system”
Is just one aspect of too many vaccines.

We are hit with more antigens in a few minutes than there are in the ENTIRE vaccine schedule. "Too many, too soon" is a lie, a ghost, a phantom, a chimera.
As for your comment in #1082, you are once again selectively quoting the facts. We have known the general principle of how vaccines work for 200+ years. The fact that

The exact immunologic mechanism by which ROTARIX protects against rotavirus gastroenteritis is unknown

does not mean that the broad mechanisms aren't.

If you don’t even know how it works, how can you claim to know the benefits/risks?

There are these amazing things called "clinical trials". Patients are assigned to two groups, one receiving the treatment, the other a placebo, and both groups are closely monitored. In that way, we learn if the treatment works or not, and if it causes unacceptable side effects.
One last thing: scientists don't yet fully understand how gravity works. Yet hundreds of experiments show it exists. Just because we don't fully understand something doesn't make it untrue.

APV,

The belief that the Earth was flat was not a conspiracy. A large group of people could be wrong without a conspiracy.

How can you compare a belief that was based on nothing but anecdotal observations, and that was abandoned more than 2,000 years before the development of the scientific method as we now understand it, to the belief that vaccines are safe and effective? That's a ridiculous comparison.

There are numerous large, well-designed studies that have looked at the association between various vaccines and various adverse events. They have found that there is no association, or that serious adverse events are very rare.

For the conclusions of these studies to be incorrect, there must be something serious wrong with all those studies. The only way I can see that possibly happening is for every one of the authors of those studies to be part of a conspiracy to hide the truth.

Like the CIA group-think Iraq WMD.

Another ludicrous comparison. Were there several scientific papers demonstrating the presence of WMDs in Iraq beyond reasonable doubt? IIRC it was based on a single master's dissertation.

Many people blindly trust the FDA/CDC. If the FDA/CDC are wrong, then a lot of people are going to be wrong in their beliefs, without the need for a conspiracy.

If you take a look at the FDA and CDC websites you will see that their positions are based on peer-reviewed evidence, that they give copious references to. If you check those references you will find that they do actually say what the CDC/FDA claim they do (unlike the papers cited on endless antivaccine websites that often say the exact opposite of what they claim - they hope you won't check). It would require a massive conspiracy for all those scientific papers to be wrong.

APV,
Does the influenza vaccine reduce mortality in the elderly? Yes, very probably, though perhaps not as much as some have claimed. It's a difficult thing to assess, as the elderly have a lot of background noise, mortality-wise. Personally I think preventing influenza is worthwhile even if it doesn't affect mortality.

Does this mean that the CDC and FDA are liars who should not be believed? Of course not.

So, why is palm not listed along with oats in the “do not contain” list?

Legal ass-covering? Because they didn't see the need to test for it since palm allergy is uncommon? Who knows? What we do know is that it would be dishonest to claim that it definitely contains palm oil on this basis.

As I wrote in #656, the Cervarix vaccine trial involved injecting the control group with the Havrix vaccine or aluminum hydroxide. One vaccine is complex enough, why throw in another vaccine which is a complex variable into the study? Looks like deception/obfuscation?
I think this has already been explained to you, but I guess you didn't understand. The adverse effects caused by Havrix and by an adjuvant-only placebo are already known, from other clinical trials. Aluminum adjuvants have been in use for almost a century their safety profile is well established.
By using these as placebos they could see what the effects of the HPV proteins in the vaccine were in isolation from the effects of the other vaccine ingredients. If you use a saline placebo, how do you know what adverse events are due to the adjuvants, the excipients, the HPV proteins? Using these placebos reduced the number of variables, it didn't increase them.

The FDA admits that they don’t know how vaccines work.
Yet, they claim that “the benefits outweigh the risk”.
If you don’t even know how it works, how can you claim to know the benefits/risks?

You cannot be serious. As Julian pointed out, that's what clinical trials are for.

Aaargh, I hate blockquote fails!!!

APV: "Where are the studies showing the safety of multiple food allergens, multiple adjuvants AND vaccine antigens injected simultaneously in one sitting?"

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, and ignored my question addressed to you.

Again, how many kids has the influenza vaccine killed this year? Stop stalling and answer the question.

Let's cut to the chase, APV:

Can you offer any credible evidence that the risks (any risk, includng but not limited to food allergies) associated with routine vaccination (any vacination, including but not limited to seasonal influenza vaccination) exceeds the risks associated with remaining vulnerable to infection?

Because if not, your entire argument ultimately takes no form other than "Ooooh...vaccine ingredients! Scary stuff!"

Here are two sources related to RISKS. There are many more, but I start with these. Hopefully, they are from a source that you trust.

Of couse any study can be doctored, and two or more Merck/GSK/Bayer scientists or Pharma funded professors can constitute a peer-reviewed study.

Aluminium overload leads to chronic fatigue syndrome, macrophagic myofasciitis and subcutaneous pseudolymphoma
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22425036

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

@matt
your second source has a correction noted, indicating a problem to me for confirmation bias.

@matt - the search box is your friend.

I'll also say that in #2 - the definition of "infant mortality" was not standard across the countries that were examined & it was not corrected for in the study - so it's garbage.

I appreciate the peer-review of the Infant mortality study. Now, what say you about the first study regarding aluminum?

Matt again cites two papers.

First is "Aluminium overload leads to chronic fatigue syndrome, macrophagic myofasciitis and subcutaneous pseudolymphoma"

As I noted multiple times there are no adjuvants in any American influenza vaccine. But I will provide a layman's definition of "macrophagic myofasciitis and subcutaneous pseudolymphoma"... it means a sore arm, that might be a bit swollen. Oh, and a single case report cannot determine if being tired was caused by the vaccine.

And the second being: "Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?" Again, the undynamic duo of Gary Goldman and Neil Miller. The former is a computer scientists whose PhD came from a diploma mill, and the latter a journalist who runs the ThinkTwice antivaccine group. Take note that they initially failed to note their obvious conflicts of interests.

Neither of them have any medical/statistical credentials. Why are they more believable than any epidemiologist working for a public health agency?

@Matt:

Your quote:
>blockquote>I am very skeptical of a product produced by criminals, aren’t you?

http://jalopnik.com/honda-fined-record-70-million-for-not-reporting-1-7…

Do you still drive a car?

Here is the link to the correction of Goldman and Miller's paper:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463891/?report=reader

Also, the treatment of that paper here:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/16/vaccines-and-infant-mortal…

Rats! I posted a link to the correction of Goldman and Miller's silly infant mortality paper, and to how it was treated in this blog.

I'll try the latter again, see if Matt will figure out why I said the things I said about upthread:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/16/vaccines-and-infant-mortal…

This thread is a masterpiece. Except now I'm out of popcorn.

Testing... testing. For some reason two of my comments have simply disappeared.

Vinu Arumugham:

You seem to have a great deal of difficulty understanding written materials. This is shown by, for example, your complete failure to directly address the question I asked.

So I'll ask it again, and I'll keep it simple:

You posted that Phuong Tang of Avantor told you directly that “they have palm oil and coconut oil in their Polysorbate 80.”

Is it true ot false that Phuong Tang of Avantor told you “they have palm oil and coconut oil in their Polysorbate 80?”

Please try to focus on this simple question.

Is it true or false that he told you that?

Vinu Arumugham:

You seem to have a great deal of difficulty understanding written materials. This is shown by, for example, your complete failure to directly address the question I asked.

So I'll ask it again, and I'll keep it simple:

You posted that Phuong Tang of Avantor told you directly that “they have palm oil and coconut oil in their Polysorbate 80.”

Is it true ot false that Phuong Tang of Avantor told you “they have palm oil and coconut oil in their Polysorbate 80?”

Please try to focus on this simple question.

Is it true or false that he told you that?

Apologies for the duplicate comment.

Matt,

Aluminium overload leads to chronic fatigue syndrome, macrophagic myofasciitis and subcutaneous pseudolymphoma

'Aluminum overload' - I don't think that means what the paper's authors think it means. It certainly is not characterized by finding aluminum at the injection site of aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines, a finding that I don't find surprising. I don't believe that a milligram of injected aluminum salts can cause aluminum overload at all, when you consider that we absorb about the same amount of aluminum every day from food as we do from an intramuscular vaccine, and more than 5 times as much from a single dose of an aluminum-containing antacid.

Macrophagic myofasciitis may be real, but it is very rare, far rarer than severe sequelae to VPDs.

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?

I can't add much to what others have said about this execrable paper, but you might consider that states with more hurricane shelters have more hurricanes. Do hurricane shelters cause hurricanes? Similarly, do you think countries with more infant contagious diseases might be motivated to introduce more vaccines?

@TBruce - Yes, but not a Honda.

@TBruce

Would you purchase a vaccine from Merck?

Merck's Vioxx killed 60,000, not to mention the Americans that suffered Vioxx-induced heart attacks and strokes, and many more were permanently disabled.
http://www.forbes.com/2005/08/19/merck-vioxx-graham_cx_mh_0819graham.ht…

11 infant deaths now linked to hepatitis B vaccines in China
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/12/27/11-infant-deaths-now-…

---------------------------------------------
Would you purchase a vaccine from GlaxoSmithKline?

GSK fined over vaccine trials; 14 babies reported dead.
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/88922/gsk-fined-over-vaccine-t…

GlaxoSmithKline document Reveals Death Of At Least 36 Infants After Infanrix Hexa Vaccine
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/11/13/document-reveals-death-o…

GlaxoSmithKline's Zyban Linked To at least 35 Deaths
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/apr/26/smoking.medicalscience

---------------------------------------------
Would you purchase a vaccine from Novartis?

Italy suspends Fluad flu vaccine from Novartis after deaths
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30240620

Matt, there was an updated to the Italian Fluad story: No evidence that Fluad vaccine caused deaths in Italy.

Vioxx was not a vaccine, and it is one case which was badly handled. There are some who miss that medication because it worked for them, and they did not have the heart condition that would have caused harm.

And none of those have to do with any influenza vaccine used in the USA on children.

As of this week there have been twenty one verified pediatric deaths from influenza in the USA. What you need to do is show that any influenza vaccine approved for use on children in the USA has caused as much injury as the disease.

This means actually getting data on the actual vaccines used on children for influenza in the USA. Not on elderly persons in Italy. Not experimenat pneumococcal vaccines in Hispanoamérica. Not smoking cessation medications in the UK. Not hepatitis vaccines used in China. And not to pain meds that were removed from the market.

Do you understand?

Would you believe a comment from Matt?

I believe he will avoid answering questions that require actual influenza statistics. He seems to just want to play "poison the well."

Of course, that does not stop him from posting a link to the ridiculous Goldman/Miller study where neither had initially declared their conflict of interests... which he did twice.

Really? You're going to pull the geography card now. Foreign deaths don't matter.

What I'm suggesting is that there are cases of death from vaccines and other products made by the companies that you purchase your vaccines from. There is a history of illicit and complicit behavior. In my mind, the products created by these companies pose a clear and present risk.

Like I said, you weight the risks and rewards. I am just pointing out that there ARE risks. You may find them small, but they still exist.

Matt: "Really? You’re going to pull the geography card now. Foreign deaths don’t matter."

Look at the title at the top of the page. What does it say? It starts with "The CDC." Those initials stand for Centers for Disease Control, and it is a public health agency that is paid by taxes by the United States of America government. Not Europe, not China and not Latin America.

Now look at the rest of the title, it is about the influenza vaccine. Not arthritis pain, not hepatitis, not smoking, and not pneumococcal bacterial diseases.

So this article about influenza vaccines used only in the USA. I just happened to choose pediatric deaths because they are investigated.

"There is a history of illicit and complicit behavior. In my mind, the products created by these companies pose a clear and present risk."

Which is poisoning the well, and has nothing to do with influenza vaccine in the USA. Major companies have divisions, and what happens in one part has nothing to do with the other. General Electric makes appliances, jet engines and owns a television network. They have separate management, and the actions of the jet engine division has nothing to do with their toasters. They also have divisions all over the world, because they just happen to manufacture products elsewhere. Though I doubt you will get a GE toaster manufactured in Europe to even plug into an outlet in the USA.

So unless you can prove that the European divisions or the other non-vaccine pharmaceutical departments have some kind bearing on influenza vaccines used in the USA, you are going to have to stick to the subject. This means influenza vaccines used only in the USA.

Oh, and after posting papers from biased anti-vax authors who did not declare their conflicts: you have no standing to dictate what morality tests are used.

Krebiozen #1087,
"By using these as placebos they could see what the effects of the HPV proteins in the vaccine were in isolation from the effects of the other vaccine ingredients."

No, the other ingredients are NOT common to both vaccines.
So this claim is invalid. Obfuscation seems like the only logical explanation.

"Using these placebos reduced the number of variables, it didn’t increase them."
Wrong, in this case.

" The FDA admits that they don’t know how vaccines work.
Yet, they claim that “the benefits outweigh the risk”.
If you don’t even know how it works, how can you claim to know the benefits/risks?

You cannot be serious. As Julian pointed out, that’s what clinical trials are for."

As I have shown for Cervarix, vaccine trials are of questionable value and prone to manipulation.
And if you bring up post-marketing surveillance, it is basically a euphemism for the general public being guinea pigs for the FDA's vaccine experiments. Since we know so little about vaccines, *every* childhood illness must be reported to the VAERS. Otherwise, how would long term effects of vaccines ever be detected?

Chris #1111,

In today's economy, your USA influenza vaccine probably contains Polysorbate 80 made by a noname company in China.

JGC #1090,

See #193.

Krebiozen #1087,

"Legal ass-covering? Because they didn’t see the need to test for it since palm allergy is uncommon? Who knows? What we do know is that it would be dishonest to claim that it definitely contains palm oil on this basis."

Julian Frost #1084,

"The answer is likely that those documents are written by lawyers, not chemists. Given the way it’s processed, I doubt that those substances are in there."

If the Polysorbate 80 was allergen free, why would they need legal cover?
The reality is, this is a real factory producing real products. Not a textbook process. The chemist and lawyers agreed, that they CANNOT guarantee the final product is free of these allergens. Manufacturers cut corners all the time to stay competitive. They only need to meet specifications set by their customers. No allergen spec., means no allergen testing. Perhaps they turn the pressure/temperature down in the process to save money. If the product still meets customer spec., they will ship it even if it contains plenty of allergen residue.

Peanut as a source for Polysorbate 80 would be too "hot" to handle. So they probably moved away from "hot" alergens to use palm, coconut etc. Claiming palm allergy is uncommon covers only the elicitation side.
Palm allergy seems to be picking up, thanks to widespread injection of palm contaminated vaccines. It has not hit the literature radar yet ...

@Chris I will concede if you take such a myopic point of view and narrow your sample size you can come to any conclusion.

FYI, American taxes pay for a majority of the WHO budget, which then distributes funds to many international organizations. As of 2012, the largest annual assessed contribution to the WHO was from the United States of $110 million.

BTW, Chris I posted a link from the NIH website where possible conflicts of interest were listed, and I acknowledged that the study was flawed and did not hang my hat on the results.

The other study about aluminum has held water and is directly related, since the flu vaccine in America contains aluminum.

I like how you pick and choose what to address, then work to discredit based on one reference and ignore anything that might challenge your beliefs.

Here's one specifically for you from the HSRA and DOJ in America! 40 children were damaged from only 2/16/14-5/15/14. There is one death, but many children got Guillain-Barré Syndrome or Transverse myelitis from the flu vaccine. I'm not sure which is worse: a progressive life debilitating disease that can result in death or death.
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/dojpresentation.pdf

Mechanism and results are different questions. We knew that aspirin was useful as a painkiller and to reduce fever well before we had any idea of the biochemistry involved. You don't need the germ theory of disease to boil your drinking water (and maybe serve it as weak tea instead of plain).

Julian Frost #1085,

“too many vaccines
overwhelming the immune system”

You misunderstood my comment. Researchers keep focusing on preaching that too many vaccine antigens are not a problem. Maybe they are not a problem.
The real problem is that no none is focusing on the fact that real vaccines don't just contain vaccine antigens. We don't even understand how vaccine work. Where are the studies showing the complex interaction of dozens of excipients in 5 vaccines injected simultaneously?

"The fact that

The exact immunologic mechanism by which ROTARIX protects against rotavirus gastroenteritis is unknown

does not mean that the broad mechanisms aren’t.

If you don’t even know how it works, how can you claim to know the benefits/risks?

There are these amazing things called “clinical trials”. Patients are assigned to two groups, one receiving the treatment, the other a placebo, and both groups are closely monitored."

"Amazing clinical trials" are a textbook fairy tale. As I wrote in #656, it is a manipulated joke in reality.

WebMD describes placebo as:
"What all placebos have in common is that they do not contain an active substance meant to affect health."
The Havrix vaccine was used as a "placebo" in the Cervarix vaccine trial. Unless you want to claim that GSK's Havrix "vaccine" is just saline ...

Julian Frost #1085,

"does not mean that the broad mechanisms aren’t."

If you only understand the broad mechanism, it does not give you license to make broad claims like "benefits outweigh the risks". As any scientist knows, the devil is in the details.

Quantum gravity is poorly understood, but we don't have to worry too much about it because those scientists are not injecting quantum black holes into our kids claiming the benefits outweigh the risks ...

Vinu Arumugham:

You're ducking my question. The reason is obvious; it's because you're terrified of giving a truthful answer. Every time you evade simple, direct questions like this it further destroys your credibility with anyone who will ever read this thread.

You posted that Phuong Tang of Avantor told you directly that “they have palm oil and coconut oil in their Polysorbate 80.”

Is it true or false that Phuong Tang of Avantor told you “they have palm oil and coconut oil in their Polysorbate 80?”

Please try to focus on this simple question.

Is it true or false that he told you that?

Vinu Arumugham:

You wrote,

"The Havrix vaccine was used as a 'placebo' in the Cervarix vaccine trial."

Please provide the exact quotation from the Cervarix trial that states that Havrix "was used as a placebo" in that trial. Note that the quotation must specifically use the word "placebo," because that's the word you used.

If you evade this, it will indicate that you are lying again. So think about that when deciding whether to run away again out of fear.

@APV #1115:

If the Polysorbate 80 was allergen free, why would they need legal cover?

Maybe to comply with laws that demand it? Maybe to guard against frivolous lawsuits?

The reality is, this is a real factory producing real products. Not a textbook process.

Actually, you're quite wrong about that. To properly mass produce anything, you need a clear, well-defined process. That holds for cars, ice cream sandwiches and yes, vaccines.

Manufacturers cut corners all the time to stay competitive.

Two words: quality control. If the samples fail quality control, the entire batch gets thrown out. That wastes money. Cutting corners is often a false economy.

Palm allergy seems to be picking up, thanks to widespread injection of palm contaminated vaccines.

Citation needed. Yet again, you are assuming that vaccines induce allergies. You still haven't provided anything that rises to the standard of proof.
#1118:

“Amazing clinical trials” are a textbook fairy tale. As I wrote in #656, it is a manipulated joke in reality.

And as was explained to you multiple times, you got it wrong.
#1119:

If you only understand the broad mechanism, it does not give you license to make broad claims like “benefits outweigh the risks”.

A complete non-sequitor. As Vicki in Comment #1117 pointed out:

Mechanism and results are different questions. We knew that aspirin was useful as a painkiller and to reduce fever well before we had any idea of the biochemistry involved.

To paraphrase a meme, You know nothing, APV. You have shown your ignorance of history, medicine, clinical trials and manufacturing. Your hypothesis lacks prior plausibility, your evidence is circumstantial, and I'm being kind.

APV,

If the Polysorbate 80 was allergen free, why would they need legal cover?

Is that a serious question? Every test has its limits of sensitivity, and it is impossible for them to claim there is not a single molecule of palm or coconut in the final product.
You are still trying to distract from your deliberate lie, that polysorbate 80 definitely contains palm oil and coconut oil.

Claiming palm allergy is uncommon covers only the elicitation side.

The elicitation side is what matters.

Palm allergy seems to be picking up,

You know this how?

thanks to widespread injection of palm contaminated vaccines. It has not hit the literature radar yet …

How can you make such absolute claims based on pure speculation? It's ridiculous. You don't know that vaccines are contaminated with palm, much less that it is causing allergies. It would be funny if misinformation like this didn't put children's lives at risk.

APV,

No, the other ingredients are NOT common to both vaccines.
So this claim is invalid. Obfuscation seems like the only logical explanation.

Cervarix contains:
20 mcg of HPV type 16 L1 protein
20 mcg of HPV type 18 L1 protein,
50 mcg of the 3-O-desacyl-4’-monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL)
0.5 mg of aluminum hydroxide.
4.4 mg of sodium chloride
0.624 mg of sodium 297 dihydrogen phosphate dihydrate.
Each dose may also contain residual amounts of insect cell and viral protein (<40 ng) and bacterial cell protein (<150 ng) from the manufacturing process.
Havrix contains:
1440 EL.U. of viral antigen, adsorbed on 0.5 mg of aluminum as aluminum hydroxide.
720 EL.U. of viral antigen, adsorbed onto 0.25 mg of aluminum as aluminum hydroxide.
Amino acid supplement (0.3% w/v)
phosphate-buffered saline solution
polysorbate 20 (0.05 mg/mL).
HAVRIX also contains residual MRC-5 cellular proteins (not more than 5 mcg/mL), formalin (not more than 0.1 mg/mL), and neomycin sulfate (not more than 40 ng/mL), an aminoglycoside antibiotic included in the cell growth media.
So each vaccine contains viral antigens, aluminum hydroxide adjuvant, a buffer solution and tiny traces of some other ingredients. I would say Havrix and aluminum hydroxide are excellent choices to compare Cervarix to.

WebMD describes placebo as:
“What all placebos have in common is that they do not contain an active substance meant to affect health.”
The Havrix vaccine was used as a “placebo” in the Cervarix vaccine trial. Unless you want to claim that GSK’s Havrix “vaccine” is just saline …

You're nitpicking. This is the usual way of testing vaccine safety and I see nothing wrong with it. If you used saline you wouldn't know if any local reactions were due to the antigen or the adjuvant, and we know the safety profile of Havrix from previous clinical trials, so it is a good choice for a comparison.

As I have shown for Cervarix, vaccine trials are of questionable value and prone to manipulation.

You have shown nothing of the sort.

And if you bring up post-marketing surveillance, it is basically a euphemism for the general public being guinea pigs for the FDA’s vaccine experiments.

Safety studies on tens of thousands of people are carried out before vaccines are approved to pick up common adverse events. Post marketing surveillance is the only practical way to look for rare adverse events in millions of people - have you any idea how much a clinical trial of millions of people would cost? This is the best way of balancing risks against benefits. Delaying the introduction of a vaccine that we know will save lives to look for very rare adverse events makes little sense.

Since we know so little about vaccines, *every* childhood illness must be reported to the VAERS. Otherwise, how would long term effects of vaccines ever be detected?

Through post marketing surveillance like the Vaccine Safety Datalink which monitors the health of "more than seven million Americans, including about 500,000 children from birth through age six years (2% of the U.S. population in this age group)" (from Wikipedia).

If you only understand the broad mechanism, it does not give you license to make broad claims like “benefits outweigh the risks”. As any scientist knows, the devil is in the details.

If you can measure the benefits and the risks it doesn't matter if you don't know the precise mechanism by which something works.

It is ironic that "pro safe tax" (by their spots or stripes they are anti-vax) apologists condemn science as flawed because it admits its errors and corrects them as it better understands what it investigates. Saying, "science used to say the earth was flat," does not prove that vaccines are not as safe as we can make them, nor does it prove that researchers are not continually re-evaluating them. It actually suggests that, as new data suggests methods to make vaccination safer and more effective, scientists will change vaccines to improve their safety and security effectiveness.

I was terribly upset when they removed Vioxx from the market. It was the first time in my life that I felt well in recent memory. No other pain killer has been as a effective. A part of me was willing to accept the risk if there would have been a way to watch for it and discontinue the drug before permanent damage occurred.

@Mrs Woo

Vioxx was a case study we looked at during my regulatory affairs studies. Frankly, I don't think that it should have been removed from market, since it was a very effective drug that worked where others didn't, and that properly used and tracked, the benefits outweighed the risks. Its withdrawal was largely due to bad PR, and Merck has themselves to blame for that. It's a good lesson for corporations: misbehave and there will be significant negative consequences and lots of money lost. What should have happened was that FDA should have required a very strongly worded black box warning on it, and holding doctors at least partially responsible for how their patients are using it. If they were to have a patient on Vioxx, they should do pretty frequent monitoring.

APV @ 1114

Unless you're explicitly admitting you are offering no argument other than "Oooh, vaccine ingredients! Scary stuff!" you've clearly mistyped the number of the post you advised I review as your post at 193 offered no evidence that that that the risks (any risk, includng but not limited to food allergies) associated with routine vaccination (any vacination, including but not limited to seasonal influenza vaccination) exceeds the risks associated with remaining vulnerable to infection.

Which is it?

APV @ 1118

We don’t even understand how vaccine work.

We may not have identified the exact molecular mechanisms by which exposure to the live attenuated virus used in Rotarix results in the generation of neutralizing antibodies, but that's hardly the same thing as not knowing how it or other vaccines work.

If you don’t even know how it works, how can you claim to know the benefits/risks?

By direct observation and quantitation, perhaps? See, there's these things we in science like to call "clinical trials" and "epidemiologic studies"...

“Amazing clinical trials” are a textbook fairy tale. As I wrote in #656, it is a manipulated joke in reality.

You've writtehat, perhaps, but you've offered nothing which suggests what you've written is accurate. Care to try to support your case that all clinical trials without exception represent nothing other than manipulated jokes with actual evidence, or is this just another unsupported asertion of personal faith on your part?

The Havrix vaccine was used as a “placebo” in the Cervarix vaccine trial. Unless you want to claim that GSK’s Havrix “vaccine” is just saline …

The Havrix vaccine is directed against hepatitus A, the Cervarix vaccine is directed against human pappiloma virus. You really can't comprehend understand the significance of this disntinction, and why it means havarix is a suitable placebo treatment when examining Cervarix safety and efficacy?

Two things have become clear from your many posts:

First, to paraphrase Will Rogers your problem is far less what you don't know as much as it is all the things you think you know for certain that simply ain't so.

Second, to convince you to revise your position it will not be enough to explain the evidence demonstrating your wrong to you--we'd have to (somehow) understand it for you as well.

RE: Vioxx and black box warnings:

Agreed. In the clinical trials there was no significant difference in mortality between the cohort receiving Vioxx and the cohort receiving naproxen, and there was no significant difference in the rate of myocardial infarction in patients receiving Vioxx and naproxen who were not previously identified as being at identified at being at increased risk of heart attack. The increased risk was associated only with patients who met criteria for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis of secondary cardiovascular events (those who had had previous myocardial infarctions, angina, cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, or coronary artery bypass).

In short, it's safe and very effective unless you're already at a significantly increased risk of having a heart attack, but contraindicated if you are.

But teh critical thing this demonstrates regarding post-marketing surveillance is that it works It detected the increase risk in a limited sub-population of all patients receiving Vioxx.

With respect to vaccines, consider the encephalopathy associated with MMR vaccine< which occurs with an incidence of 1 in every 1 million vaccinations received. If food allergies really were associated with vaccination, at incidence levels sufficient to drive the increase in food allergies APV seems to believe is occurring, post mraketing surveillance would have no problem detecting that association.

Matt: "FYI, American taxes pay for a majority of the WHO budget"

And does the title say "WHO" or does it say "CDC"?

"The other study about aluminum has held water and is directly related, since the flu vaccine in America contains aluminum."

And for the fourth or fifth time NO American influenza vaccine contains adjuvants: "Seasonal influenza vaccines used in the United States do not contain adjuvants."

And the "aluminum bad" argument is still stupid. It is just as bad as "this company did something bad in another country, therefor all of its products are bad!" (So please stop watching TV, using a washing machine or flying a jet plane because GE did something bad somewhere).

And using the incredibly lax vaccine compensation rulings by the NVICP is really lame. Between 2006 to March 2014 they compensated compensated 699 claims out of over 809,000,000 influenza doses. That is less one claim out of over a million doses, most of them settlements where it was just the timing.

APV: "In today’s economy, your USA influenza vaccine probably contains Polysorbate 80 made by a noname company in China"

Ooooh, instead of telling me how many children have been injured in the USA by the influenza vaccine and comparing it to the over twenty pediatric deaths from the actual disease... APV tells me it "probably" contained some random ingredient.

APV and Matt, you still need to prove an American influenza vaccine is more dangerous than the disease with real relevant and verifiable data.

@Chris - Influenza is not dangerous at all. How many kids came down with life-long debilitating diseases from contracting influenza? None that I can find. How many kids died from influenza? 12

If you want to talk numbers and get scientific (not heartless) and talk statistical significance, 12 deaths / 25 million (0-5 y.o. in US) = 0.000048%. Or you can use 12 deaths / 75 million (0-17 y.o. in US) = 0.000016%. In any scientific study that is statistically insignificant. Does every child's life matter? Yes! We also have to separate science from emotional reactions.

The point is that among a population a statistically insignificant number of children died of the influenza rendering the vaccine unnecessary. These 12 children are outliers. Influenza is not a dangerous disease by any scientific measure.

Matt, if someone murdered your children, would you object if the judge let them off because he didn't kill more than 0.00002% of the US population?

Now tell me, how many people did the flu vaccine kill this year?

Let's see, there were 129 pediatric (age less than 5 years) deaths in 2014. During the current flu season, Since Sept. 28, there have been 26 pediatric flu deaths thru Jan. 3, 2015. Doesn't sound like a "not dangerous at all" disease.

12 deaths / 25 million (0-5 y.o. in US) = 0.000048%. Or you can use 12 deaths / 75 million (0-17 y.o. in US) = 0.000016%.

Wrong denominator. If you can figure out why, then come back and we'll continue talking.

In any scientific study that is statistically insignificant.

And while you're figuring out why your denominator is wrong, you may want to learn what "statistically significant/insignificant" means, because you clearly don't.

@Gray Your analogy is ludicrous. Like I said. Let's talk science. Don't get emotional on me.

If you want to talk absolute numbers, 699 were injured from the flu vaccine (Compensable) and it was proven in court from 2006 to Present.
1 child died among 40 children who were damaged from the flu vaccine from only 2/16/14-5/15/14. Like I said Guillain-Barré Syndrome is probably worse than death. I would prefer death than being tortured to death. The 12 deaths were not proven in court, and less verifiable than 699 or 40. Number of life-debilitating conditions from contracting the flu: 0.

Matt: "@Chris – Influenza is not dangerous at all. How many kids came down with life-long debilitating diseases from contracting influenza? None that I can find. How many kids died from influenza? 12 "

Do you have some kind reading comprehension problem? You have been given this link multiple times: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/ . This time actually click on it and read the graph of pediatric deaths from influenza.

It has been updated, it is now twenty six dead children (math hint: that is more than twice "12"). The last two years it was over a hundred each year. It is early in the flu season and more than a quarter of that number have died already.

Now come up with the verifiable statistics that shows any American influenza vaccine approved for children causes at least a hundred deaths per year.

In the mean time read Vaccine Preventable Disease - The Forgotten Story.

@Matt: Human lives are at stake. I have every need to be emotional.

Now, where is the source for your absurd claim that nobody has ever had a "life-debilitating conditions from contracting the flu"? Answer or I assume you made it up out of whole cloth.

Matt,
First off, the supposed link between Guillain-Barré Syndrome and flu vaccine was looked at and found to be nonexistent.
Second off, inflammation of the heart muscle (myocarditis), and inflammation of the sac around the heart (pericarditis) are both complications of flu. It can also worsen chronic conditions.
When you wrote "Number of life-debilitating conditions from contracting the flu: 0", you were stating a falsity. But I suppose that isn't that surprising.

Matt: "1 child died among 40 children who were damaged from the flu vaccine from only 2/16/14-5/15/14."

I did not find that in the powerpoint you linked to. Instead I see:
"Total Petitions Filed in the United States Court of Federal
Claims this reporting period: 122
A. Minors: 40
B. Adults: 82"

Followed by:
A. Compensated: 78
i. Cases conceded by HHS: 11
1. Decision awarding damages: 0
2. Decision adopting Proffer: 11
3. Decision adopting Settlement: 0
ii. Cases not conceded by HHS: 67
1. Decision awarding damages: 0
2. Decision adopting Proffer: 3
3. Decision adopting Settlement: 64"

The adjudicated judgement settlement lists one death from flu vaccine, but it does not say if it was an adult or child, only that it took six years. It was just one of those cases that comes under "ii. Cases not conceded by HHS: 67" and "3. Decision adopting Settlement: 64"

Now you still have to prove that the vaccine causes more damage than the disease. A disease that has killed over two dozen kids this year on its march to over a hundred by the end of the season.

Influenza is not dangerous at all. How many kids came down with life-long debilitating diseases from contracting influenza? None that I can find. How many kids died from influenza? 12

So any disease that fails to kill in large numbers cannot by definition be considered dangerous--that's really your position? No other asociated outcomes, such as prolonged illness requiring hospitalization which does not result in the patient's death, are germane?

Did polio suddenly stop being a dangerous disease, once the invention of the iron lung reduced its mortality?

Influenza is not a dangerous disease by any scientific measure.

Only to the extent that diseases like diabetesis not a "dangerous diseases by any scientific measure” –i.e., when the text in quotes is understood to mean “is not inevitably fatal when those suffering the disease receive appropriate and sufficient medical support".

Matt @1133:

You admit that the flu vaccine has killed no children, and that influenza kills children every year. That sounds like a strong argument *for* vaccination, to me.

Then you start talking about numbers of children allegedly injured by the vaccine. The appropriate comparison there is people who are injured by influenza, including high fever and cases that lead to bronchitis and pneumonia.

You don't get to exclude children from the comparison *because the disease killed them, and they didn't survive to have possible long-term debilitating effects.*

JGC #1128,

When a patient on Vioxx dies, the doctors reported it.
When a child is diagnosed with food allergy, no one reports it to the VAERS.
That is why post marketing surveillance is useless for the vaccine/food allergy connection.

And when a child dies from influenza, it is investigated. When a parent claims a child died from a vaccine it is reported to VAERS and/or the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The NVICP does keep their records public.

So, APV, you have no excuse to not have access to the statistics on injuries caused by a vaccine. So you need to find those verifiable statistics to show that any influenza vaccine approved for use on American children causes more harm than the disease.

A disease that killed over a hundred kids last year, and has killed at least twenty six children this year.

Stop making excuses.

Julian Frost #1136,

"First off, the supposed link between Guillain-Barré Syndrome and flu vaccine was looked at and found to be nonexistent."

Let me get this straight. Influenza vaccine does not cause GBS but it carries a GBS warning.
Polysorbate 80 contains no palm allergens but it carries a sourced from palm warning.
Vaccines have been shown to cause food allergies since 1952 but they DO NOT carry a food allergy warning?

How does this twisted logic work?

Mrs Woo #1125,

Vaccines are not just a science problem. The science will probably do just fine if left to itself.

The FDA has to convince people to vaccinate in order to achieve herd immunity.
There are two ways to achieve it:
The hard way: Make vaccines safe. Discuss any problems openly. Convince people to vaccinate.

The easy way: Obfuscate, sweep stuff under the carpet, make claims of benefits outweighing risk with no scientific basis, etc. The FDA has chosen this way. Is it any wonder that more and more people distrust the FDA?

OccamsLaser #1121,

Krebiozen #1087 was the first to use "placebo" to describe the Havrix vaccine. Why don't you accuse Krebiozen of lying?

APV, what are the relative risk between the vaccine and the disease?

Right now we know that influenza has killed twenty six kids. Last year it killed more than a hundred kids. Where are the statistics showing any vaccine for influenza approved for children used in the USA caused more harm?

JGC #1127,

You did not understand #193. Let me repeat. The solution to vaccine safety problems is not to stop vaccinating.
The solution is to fix the vaccine safety problems. So your question is irrelevant.
Why do I care about vaccine safety problems, if not vaccinating was a viable option?

Here are more questionable clinical trials:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedPr…
"In the largest of these studies (HAV 231) conducted in the US, 1,241 children 15 months of age were randomized to receive: Group 1) HAVRIX alone; Group 2) HAVRIX concomitantly with measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine (manu factured by Merck and Co.) and varicella vaccine (manufactured by Merck and Co.); or Group 3) MMR and varicella vaccines. Subjects in Group 3 who received MMR and varicella vaccines received the first dose of HAVRIX 42 days later".

More obfuscation.

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedPr…
"Reactogenicity data from a small Phase 2 trial (Study 5) in adults 18 through 49 years of age, 153 of whom received Flublok 135mcg, are not presented."
This vaccine contains 135 mcg of HA. But it sounds like a different vaccine's study is being reported in the package insert?
"For the 2014-2015 influenza season it is formulated to contain 135 mcg HA per 0.5 mL dose"

Clinical trials raise more questions than they seem to answer ...

"The Havrix vaccine is directed against hepatitus A, the Cervarix vaccine is directed against human pappiloma virus."

Cervarix itself has many excipients - variables. If the intention was to gain useful information, you will always try to reduce the number of variables. Here they increased the number of variables and the only logical explanation for that is obfuscation.

APV, there is actual evidence that has been posted several times that influenza has killed twenty six children this early in the influenza season.

Where is the real verifiable evidence that any vaccine approved to prevent influenza in children in the USA has caused as many deaths? Why are you ignoring those deaths? Why do you refuse to provide real verifiable evidence that the vaccines are dangerous?

APV, why won't you tell us how may kids influenza vaccines have killed?

The actual disease has been verified in the death of twenty six kids in this season. It is on its way to killing over a hundred kids this year like the last couple of years.

Where are the actual statistics on the harm you are claiming for the influenza vaccines approved for children in the USA? Do they actually exist?

APV, why won't you tell us how may kids influenza vaccines have killed?

The actual disease has been verified in the death of twenty six kids in this season. It is on its way to killing over a hundred kids this year just like the last couple of years.

Where are the actual statistics on the harm you are claiming for the influenza vaccines approved for children in the USA? Do they actually exist?

(How did that extra letter occur in my email address? Sorry, Orac, it was me being an idiot on my keyboard.)

APV: "“The Havrix vaccine is directed against hepatitus A, the Cervarix vaccine is directed against human pappiloma virus.”"

No matter how may times one gets those vaccines, they do nothing for influenza. A disease that has killed twenty six kids this year.

So how many children has the influenza vaccine killed? Do give us some verifiable statistics on that. Like right now. Stop making excuses.

Krebiozen #1124,

Moving goalposts.

In #1087 "in isolation from the effects of the other vaccine ingredients."
You wanted to isolate the effect of the other ingredients.

In #1124 "tiny traces of some other ingredients."
Here you dismiss the effect of the other ingredients.
What changed?

"we know the safety profile of Havrix"

The Havrix trial is another obfuscation, pl. see #1146.

"if any local reactions were due to the antigen or the adjuvant,"

In #621 you claimed:
"The safety of aluminum as an adjuvant has been established,"
Local reaction to adjuvant perfectly understood?
So why inject it into the control group?

Again, you are trying to defend the indefensible and you should know it.

In #1124 "tiny traces of some other ingredients."
We know 8-18ng/ml can cause anaphylaxis. We know from the days of Wells that it takes a lot less to sensitize than it takes to elicit a reaction. After all this discussion, you dismiss 40ng - 5mcg of proteins as "tiny traces"?

"If you can measure the benefits and the risks it doesn’t matter if you don’t know the precise mechanism by which something works."

How do you know what to measure? Food allergy is not reported or measured in VAERS.

In 1952 there was no egg allergy epidemic. Yet, Ratner, Untracht and Hertzmark were convinced based on Richet's finding, that egg allergy from vaccines must be studied. They studied and demonstrated the problem even in a protected population.

In contrast today, we are aware of Ratner et. al, there's a raging food allergy epidemic fueled by vaccines and the FDA wants to sweep it under the carpet.

Julian Frost #1122

"Two words: quality control."
If you don't have an allergen specification, quality control is not possible.

"Yet again, you are assuming that vaccines induce allergies. You still haven’t provided anything that rises to the standard of proof."
If you ignore the facts, you will never see the proof.

Vicki #1117,

You can claim boiling water kills germs. But claiming that the benefits of boiling water outweigh the risks needs a more detailed study. When you boil water, you concentrate the contaminants. Vaccines are far more complicated than boiling water. So the FDA's claim is bogus.

Krebiozen #1123,
"Every test has its limits of sensitivity, and it is impossible for them to claim there is not a single molecule of palm or coconut in the final product.
You are still trying to distract from your deliberate lie, that polysorbate 80 definitely contains palm oil and coconut oil. "

What test? When there is no spec., why test?
Yes, it is impossible to claim that the product is allergen-free.
And when there is no testing, it is ridiculous to assume that whatever contamination occurs is safe.

Any professional vaccine engineer using this product without an allergen spec., should assume it is contaminated with an unknown quanity of palm allergen. There is no other responsible assumption s/he can make.

" Palm allergy seems to be picking up,

You know this how?"
Google radar detects stuff before scientific publications ...

"You don’t know that vaccines are contaminated with palm, much less that it is causing allergies."
Nobody has any clue how much palm (and other) allergen contaminates Polysorbate 80 because nobody specifies it or measures it.
Poorly hydrolyzed gelatin can happen but contaminated Polysorbate 80 is impossible? It does not take a PhD to point out that Murphy's law applies here.

Matt,

If you want to talk numbers and get scientific (not heartless) and talk statistical significance, 12 deaths / 25 million (0-5 y.o. in US) = 0.000048%. Or you can use 12 deaths / 75 million (0-17 y.o. in US) = 0.000016%. In any scientific study that is statistically insignificant.

I can barely believe I just read that. You clearly have no clue what statistical significance means. No wonder you have come to such bizarre conclusions about vaccine safety if you are this scientifically illiterate.

If this way of calculating statistical significance is valid all serious vaccine-related adverse events are all so rare they are statistically insignificant so we can ignore them. What a good example of the double-think it requires to be an antivaxxer.

1 child died among 40 children who were damaged from the flu vaccine from only 2/16/14-5/15/14. Like I said Guillain-Barré Syndrome is probably worse than death. I would prefer death than being tortured to death.

Worse than death? About 80% of GBS patients fully recover.

You know what definitely causes Guillain-Barré Syndrome? Influenza. The risk of GBS from the influenza vaccine is less than 1 in 100,000, and the risk of GBS after influenza is 4–7 in 100,000. If you want to avoid GBS the logical course of action is to get the influenza vaccine.

The 12 deaths were not proven in court, and less verifiable than 699 or 40. Number of life-debilitating conditions from contracting the flu: 0.

The life-debilitating conditions from contracting influenza were not proven in court either. The Vaccine Court does not establish causality beyond all reasonable doubt, that's the point of it. Pretending that influenza is less dangerous than influenza is truly desperate.

APV,

When a patient on Vioxx dies, the doctors reported it.
When a child is diagnosed with food allergy, no one reports it to the VAERS.

Oh really? How is it that there are almost 200 reports of food allergy on VAERS?

APV,

Here are more questionable clinical trials:

What is questionable about that?

More obfuscation.

More like a comprehension problem on your part.

“Reactogenicity data from a small Phase 2 trial (Study 5) in adults 18 through 49 years of age, 153 of whom received Flublok 135mcg, are not presented.”
This vaccine contains 135 mcg of HA. But it sounds like a different vaccine’s study is being reported in the package insert?

Not to me it doesn't. They clearly explain that there were 5 clinical trials, the data from these were pooled in various ways but the data from the small Phase 2 trial were only used in the safety assessment.

Clinical trials raise more questions than they seem to answer …

Only if you don't have the scientific background to understand them.

Cervarix itself has many excipients – variables. If the intention was to gain useful information, you will always try to reduce the number of variables. Here they increased the number of variables and the only logical explanation for that is obfuscation.

Apparently you don't understand what a variable is either.

If we know the number of side effects to expect from an aluminum adjuvant, which we do, then comparing Cervarix with an aluminum adjuvant will tell us what effects of Cervarix are due to ingredients other than the aluminum adjuvant.

If we know the number of side effects to expect from another vaccine, in this case Havrix, then comparing Cervarix with that other vaccine will tell us if Cervarix causes more side effects than that vaccine.

I don't see any problem here except your breathtaking lack of understanding of how clinical trials work.

APV,

Moving goalposts.

Yet another term you apparently do not understand the meaning of.

You wanted to isolate the effect of the other ingredients.

Correct.

Here you dismiss the effect of the other ingredients.
What changed?

We know what the effects of the other ingredients are and that they are negligible from previous clinical trials.

The Havrix trial is another obfuscation, pl. see #1146.

No, it isn't. You just don't understand how this works.

Local reaction to adjuvant perfectly understood?
So why inject it into the control group?

So you can compare the local effects of the antigen in the vaccine to the effects of the adjuvant, obviously.

Again, you are trying to defend the indefensible and you should know it.

I am amazed that you seem to be unable to understand how this works. It really isn't that complex.

We know 8-18ng/ml can cause anaphylaxis. We know from the days of Wells that it takes a lot less to sensitize than it takes to elicit a reaction. After all this discussion, you dismiss 40ng – 5mcg of proteins as “tiny traces”?

Havrix, which contains less than 5 mcg of residual MRC-5 cellular proteins, has been tested in clinical trials, and we know the side effects we can expect. We compare it to Cervarix to see of more side effects are reported. I don't see the problem. Is there evidence of allergic reactions to residual MRC-5 cellular proteins?

“If you can measure the benefits and the risks it doesn’t matter if you don’t know the precise mechanism by which something works.”
How do you know what to measure? Food allergy is not reported or measured in VAERS.

Another flat lie, see 10016946 in the VAERS symptom list.

In 1952 there was no egg allergy epidemic.

Vaccines back then contained at least as much egg protein as they do now, probably more, therefore egg proteins in vaccines cannot be responsible for causing the current egg allergy 'epidemic'..

Yet, Ratner, Untracht and Hertzmark were convinced based on Richet’s finding, that egg allergy from vaccines must be studied. They studied and demonstrated the problem even in a protected population.

What part of "No clinical egg sensitivity developed", did you not understand?

In contrast today, we are aware of Ratner et. al, there’s a raging food allergy epidemic fueled by vaccines and the FDA wants to sweep it under the carpet.

You have absolutely no justification for making this claim. You have failed to demonstrate a link between vaccines and food allergies, and in fact the evidence you have presented strongly suggests that this is due to foods, not to vaccines at all.

APV,

What test?

Any test has sensitivity limits, so if a manufacturer claims that all traces of a substance have been removed, someone may come along with an even more sensitive test in the future and sue them. I think it very likely that this is why the manufacturers phrased it the way they did, probably on advice from their legal team.

When there is no spec., why test?

What a strange question. If you want to produce a quality product, why not test?

Yes, it is impossible to claim that the product is allergen-free. And when there is no testing, it is ridiculous to assume that whatever contamination occurs is safe.

Who is making this assumption? The only assumption I see being made here is by you, assuming that polysorbate 80 contains coconut and palm oils when we know this is extremely unlikely.

Any professional vaccine engineer using this product without an allergen spec., should assume it is contaminated with an unknown quanity of palm allergen. There is no other responsible assumption s/he can make.

How do you know that vaccine manufacturers do not already assume this? Do they really wring their hands in frustration that there is no specification so they are forced to use contaminated ingredients without testing them?

” Palm allergy seems to be picking up, You know this how?” Google radar detects stuff before scientific publications …

Ah, Google radar detecting stuff, of course. How precisely does it detect an increase in a phenomenon that occurs in perhaps one in a million people? I call BS.

“You don’t know that vaccines are contaminated with palm, much less that it is causing allergies.”
Nobody has any clue how much palm (and other) allergen contaminates Polysorbate 80 because nobody specifies it or measures it.

I'm glad you finally admit this. So how can you claim categorically that it contains any palm or coconut allergens at all? It could contain none, could it not?

Poorly hydrolyzed gelatin can happen but contaminated Polysorbate 80 is impossible? It does not take a PhD to point out that Murphy’s law applies here.

No one said it is impossible, just that it is extremely unlikely that any allergens survive the polysorbate manufacturing process. Yet you have repeatedly claimed that it is definitely contaminated, with no evidence for this whatsoever. Your inability to see the distinction between the remote possibility that something might possibly be occurring, and it being a definite proven fact that it is occurring is extremely bizarre. It's the main reason I have bothered with your comments at all. You remind me of Th1Th2, who used to comment here some time ago, and had similarly blinkered black and white thinking.

By the way, I did refer to Havrix and aluminum hydroxide as placebos when strictly speaking I should have referred to them as controls. Mea culpa, though APV's claims about clinical trials are still wrong.

This thread is still going on?

Orac,

This thread is still going on?

Sadly, yes. I figure if APV is here arguing with us he has less time to write dangerous nonsense elsewhere.

Is there a record number of comments we can aspire to beating?

@APV:

Let me get this straight. Influenza vaccine does not cause GBS but it carries a GBS warning.

It was suspected of causing GBS but later investigation showed that it didn't. Due to legal reasons, the warning still has to be carried despite there being no proven link. It's a precaution.

Polysorbate 80 contains no palm allergens but it carries a sourced from palm warning.

Krebiozen has already explained this to you in #1123. Please re-read his comment.

Vaccines have been shown to cause food allergies since 1952 but they DO NOT carry a food allergy warning?

They have NOT been shown to do any such thing. You have devised a ludicrous hypothesis and instead of doing what scientists do (and try to see if it can be disproven) you have tortured the data in a blatantly dishonest manner to fit said hypothesis.

The solution is to fix the vaccine safety problems. So your question is irrelevant.

Spoken like a true anti-vaxxer. You assume that vaccines have safety problems (in your case allergies) that need fixing.

If you ignore the facts, you will never see the proof.

Oh the irony and the hypocrisy.
I'm going to say what I said before: you got nothin', APV.

Polysorbate 80 from Avantor carries this allergen/hypersensitivities information:

“Allergen/Hypersensitivities Information: The products listed do not contain wheat, rye,
oats, barley, spelt, malt, triticale, gluten, other grains, soybean, eggs, yeast, canola, dairy
products, seafood products, peanuts, natural grape products, natural flavors, artificial flavors,
celery, lactose, sulfites, elemental sulfur, preservatives, MSG, disodium guanylate/inosinate,
artificial sweeteners, phenylalanine, additives, colorants, dyes, or natural rubber (latex).
Please be advised that the product is sourced from substances of vegetable (corn, palm,
sunflower, or coconut).”

When this Polysorbate 80 is used in a vaccine, I expect the vaccine package insert to carry this same allergen/hypersensitivities information.
Can anyone explain why such information is missing?

Krebiozen #1156,
"Oh really? How is it that there are almost 200 reports of food allergy on VAERS?"

When millions have been diagnosed with food allergy. That shows VAERS is completely useless.

APV,

Krebiozen #1156,
“Oh really? How is it that there are almost 200 reports of food allergy on VAERS?”

When millions have been diagnosed with food allergy. That shows VAERS is completely useless.

Assuming, of course, that food allergies are a consequence of vaccination, naturally. If food allergies aren't often caused by vaccination, then the answer might be different.

Krebiozen #1158,

Cervarix and Havrix contain aluminum hydroxide.
Cervarix trials used aluminum hydroxide in the control group.
There was no aluminum hydroxide control group for Havrix.

Let's hear the twisted/tortured logic behind that.
After decades of vaccine trials, one would think there would be a standard test protocol defined instead of this utter obfuscating mess.

Is it just me, or is APV and MJD cut from the same cloth with their fixation on allergies (even APV mentions latex) and inability to see all of the myriad reasons that their pet hypothesis is wrong?

Mephistopheles O'Brien #116,

No you should report all childhood food allergy diagnoses to the VAERS and let the researchers figure out if it is a consequence of vaccination or not. Now, doctors assume it is not a consequence of vaccination and don't report it. That's the problem.

Julian Frost #1163,

According to you, vaccines do not cause GBS but due to a legal reason they have to carry a warning.
According to you, vaccines do not cause food allergy but there is no legal reason to carry a warning.
Absurdity defined.

APV - absurdity defined.....

No you should report all childhood food allergy diagnoses to the VAERS and let the researchers figure out if it is a consequence of vaccination or not.

Absolutely. In fact, you should report every single childhood illness -- every headache, every sneeze, every sore throat -- to VAERS because, who knows, maybe vaccination causes every single childhood illness.

@APV:

According to you all the best available evidence, vaccines do not cause food allergy but so there is no legal reason to carry a warning.

FTFY.

http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2809%2902305-7/fulltext
“Since the 1997-1998 influenza season, 51 lots of vaccine have been tested. The brands and lots with the lowest level of ovalbumin were chosen for vaccination of egg allergic patients to avoid adverse events. The concentration of ovalbumin in the same brand varied from year to year (e.g. Flumist®: 005-0.8 μg/ml; Flushied®, 6.90-38.30 μg/ml; Fluarix®, 0.025-0.31 μg/ml; Fluzone®, 0.30-8.05 μg/ml; Fluvirin®, <0.01-0.55 μg/ml)."

Proof that vaccine makers don't care about vaccine allergen content. If vaccine makers don't care, their suppliers - excipient makers, Polysorbate 80 makers don't care about allergen content either. All those quality control claims are invalid.

Julian Frost #1173,

So GBS evidence is questionable, requiring a warning?

And please post the "best available evidence" showing "vaccines do not cause food allergy".

LW #1172,

Yes, a third world pediatrician told me he can determine citizenship by peering down a kid's ear canal.
See a grommet inside - US citizen!
So perhaps we will find a link between the ear infection epidemic in US kids and the US vaccine schedule.

Krebiozen #1159,

"No one said it is impossible, just that it is extremely unlikely that any allergens survive the polysorbate manufacturing process."

Where is the data? How much allergen survives? 5mg/ml, 50 ng/ml? how often? And you have no idea how much palm/coconut allergen is need to sensitize an atopic kid receiving an adjuvanted vaccine, do you?
When you are dealing with life-threatening issues, when there is lack of data, you have to assume the worst. If you don't want to deal with the worst case, then the FDA should study it, establish a safe dose specification and enforce it. It is the simple scientific way to handle it.

Julian Frost #1163,

" Vaccines have been shown to cause food allergies since 1952 but they DO NOT carry a food allergy warning?

They have NOT been shown to do any such thing. "

Paper 1.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM195204032461403
They show 5 of 312 developed dermal sensitivity to egg white due to the egg proteins present in vaccines.

Paper 2.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1399-3038.2001.1r046.x/abs…
says “Some epidemiological studies in humans suggest an inhibitory effect of tuberculosis on allergy”.

The children in Paper 1, were all under treatment for tuberculosis.
So the authors seem to have unknowingly selected a population with some protection against allergy.

So even in a population with some protection against allergy, sensitivity was detectable in 1.6% of the patients, in 1952.

So perhaps we will find a link between the ear infection epidemic in US kids and the US vaccine schedule.

No doubt, since apparently vaccines are responsible for every illness known to man.

Could egg allergy be due to the 90 trillion eggs that are consumed in the US every year, about 4000,000,000 micrograms grams of egg protein per person per year? Of course not, it must be the 40 micrograms or less of ovalbumin in an annual influenza vaccine that does it.

"So perhaps we will find a link between the ear infection epidemic in US kids and the US vaccine schedule."

I am now satisfied that APV is just trolling. I facetiously suggest that every single childhood illness should be reported as possible vaccine injury, and suddenly there's an epidemic of ear infections and this epidemic is also caused by vaccines!

Where is the data? How much allergen survives?

Good grief. I am experiencing a weird combination of deja vu and a loss of the will to live. How much survives? Very probably none, given the manufacturing process - what part of Merck's statement, "we do not expect the listed allergens in the final product" isn't clear? But I don't know for sure and neither do you, that's why I am quite certain vaccine manufacturers test it for allergens, and that's why it is a lie to claim that it is definitely present. Get it?

So even in a population with some protection against allergy, sensitivity was detectable in 1.6% of the patients, in 1952.

I ask again, what part of "No clinical egg sensitivity developed", from paper one, did you not understand? Do you remember that "the presence of IgE to food proteins is not sufficient to generate clinical reactivity"?

Repeating the same nonsense over and over doesn't make it true, whatever Lewis Carroll wrote.

Krebiozen #1181,

"Merck’s statement, “we do not expect the listed allergens in the final product” isn’t clear?"
They don't test and therefore it is a bogus claim.
Don't you ever learn? The hydrolyzed gelatin makers and
DTaP/TDaP makers made the same untested claims about allergens until people fell sick.

"that’s why I am quite certain vaccine manufacturers test it for allergens,"
Pl. see #1174. Vaccine makers DO NOT test for allergens.
They could not care less. Proof in #1174.

"Five in 319, or 1.6 per cent, of these subjects developed a dermal sensitivity to egg white."
And what part of that don't you understand.
In #1010 you accepted vaccines cause egg allergy
and you suggested:
"Maybe that’s why vaccine manufacturers have dramatically reduced the amount of egg protein in vaccines over the past 63 years, to the point where there is too little in most influenza vaccines to sensitize even a 300 gram guinea pig, much less a human."

Now you flip flop.

Krebiozen #1179,

"No doubt, since apparently vaccines are responsible for every illness known to man. "
Actually, they could be responsible for illnesses NOT EVEN known to man. That's the peril you have to be prepared to face when you vaccinate people without knowing how vaccines work. Everyone will admit that we don't know how the immune system works. So why do you think it is inconceivable for example, that ear infections cannot be caused by some vaccine related immunomodulatory effect?

Adjuvants I have read, may work by fooling the immune system into believing that the vaccine antigens represent a real infection. How do you know how many pathways are affected by this fooling effect? May be nature is demonstrating that we are the fools instead?

Vinu Arumugham -

Look, you've already admitted that you lied repeatedly and that you made up many of the supposed facts you have been stating, all in an effort to further your agenda. You've also said that you are a coward.

Isn't it ironic that you are all the terrible things you claim the FDA and medical researchers are?

Are you teaching your children to lie to try to get their way?

Krebiozen #1162,

" I figure if APV is here arguing with us he has less time to write dangerous nonsense elsewhere. "

It is an honor that Orac's dream team is working overtime to protect the internet against this puny engineer's "dangerous" posts.
Once again you have admitted that parents find my posts far more credible than whatever the FDA/CDC dish out. Otherwise, why would my posts be "dangerous"?

Here are two sources related to RISKS.

Sigh.

Endless Summer, Eternal September, whatever.

“Since the 1997-1998 influenza season, 51 lots of vaccine have been tested. The brands and lots with the lowest level of ovalbumin were chosen for vaccination of egg allergic patients to avoid adverse events. The concentration of ovalbumin in the same brand varied from year to year (e.g. Flumist®: 005-0.8 μg/ml; Flushied®, 6.90-38.30 μg/ml; Fluarix®, 0.025-0.31 μg/ml; Fluzone®, 0.30-8.05 μg/ml; Fluvirin®, <0.01-0.55 μg/ml)."

Proof that vaccine makers don't care about vaccine allergen content.

Asked and answered (twice),* dipshіt.

Apparently, your amazing circuit-design skills somehow have left you wholly unable to grasp the concept of an upper limit when you're dead-set upon snorting and rooting for truffles, trees or no.

* Although not by you.

APV,

“Merck’s statement, “we do not expect the listed allergens in the final product” isn’t clear?”
They don’t test and therefore it is a bogus claim.

How is "we do not expect" a bogus claim? The statement implicitly acknowledges that they haven't tested.

Don’t you ever learn? The hydrolyzed gelatin makers and DTaP/TDaP makers made the same untested claims about allergens until people fell sick.

Where did the DTaP/TDaP manufacturers make this claim? I thought it was an unfortunate lapse in manufacturing standards. That incident led to a maximum of 10.3 cases of anaphylaxis per million doses of gelatin-containing measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella vaccines. Post-marketing surveillance in Japan picked up this increase in allergies, yet you are claiming that post-marketing surveillance has failed to pick up allergies caused by vaccines in 1 in 13 children. That seems a little implausible to me.

Pl. see #1174. Vaccine makers DO NOT test for allergens. They could not care less. Proof in #1174.

How can this be true when you yourself have provided us with allergen levels in various vaccines provided by the manufacturers? For example, the package insert for Afluria states that it contains ovalbumin (< 1 mcg).

In #1010 you accepted vaccines cause egg allergy

No I did not. I suggested that the dermal sensitivity, not clinical allergy, that they found influenza vaccines could cause back in 1952 might have prompted vaccine manufacturers to reduced the amount of egg protein in influenza vaccines. Haven't you heard of the precautionary principle?

This reminds me of claims that mercury in vaccines must have been damaging children, otherwise it would not have been removed from most vaccines.

Now you flip flop.

No, you lie, again. I have rarely encountered anyone who has had to lie so much to support their arguments.

Actually, they could be responsible for illnesses NOT EVEN known to man. That’s the peril you have to be prepared to face when you vaccinate people without knowing how vaccines work. Everyone will admit that we don’t know how the immune system works.

You didn't understand what you were told about clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance did you? Or you have ignored it like everything else that doesn't fit your preconceptions.

So why do you think it is inconceivable for example, that ear infections cannot be caused by some vaccine related immunomodulatory effect?

At least one large long-term epidemiological study has found that vaccines reduce the incidence of ear infections. If vaccines are causing ear infections, why is the incidence falling?

Adjuvants I have read, may work by fooling the immune system into believing that the vaccine antigens represent a real infection. How do you know how many pathways are affected by this fooling effect? May be nature is demonstrating that we are the fools instead?

I don't think nature is quite clever enough to fool us into thinking vaccines has dramatically reduced the burden of contagious diseases and infant mortality rates while actually doing the opposite.

It is an honor that Orac’s dream team is working overtime to protect the internet against this puny engineer’s “dangerous” posts.

We're hardly working overtime, I'm idly amusing myself in my free time because I find your unshakable idée fixe intriguing.

Once again you have admitted that parents find my posts far more credible than whatever the FDA/CDC dish out. Otherwise, why would my posts be “dangerous”?

Is that really how you justify lie after lie? Try shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater and see how well that excuse works for you. "The panicking crowds should have listened to the usherette. It's not my fault they got trampled to death."

When you tell people that the FDA cannot be trusted because they approved a drug that "kills people more efficiently than it kills pain", which is an outrageous lie, and continue with other lies about the FDA such as, "the FDA/CDC seem to want to hide/obfuscate the facts about vaccine-induced diseases", which is simply not true, you undermine people's faith in the FDA, and their confidence in vaccines.

You have posted your lies about vaccines and food allergies on hundreds of websites. It's up to you what you post, of course, but I firmly believe that if one child dies because you scared their parents away from vaccinating with your lies, some of the responsibility for that death is yours.

APV, I had a look at that NEJM article you posted. W.R.T. your claim that

They show 5 of 312 developed dermal sensitivity to egg white due to the egg proteins present in vaccines.

The paper suggests that vaccines might cause allergy. It does NOT confirm it. As for paper 2, the operative word (which hilariously YOU posted) is once again might. TB might have an inhibitory effect on allergies.
I repeat again what I said before. APV, you got nothin'.

I missed this comment of APV's @ #1175.

And please post the “best available evidence” showing “vaccines do not cause food allergy”.

You've just confirmed that you know nothing about science. It is impossible to prove a negative, yet that's what you want me to do.
It's not up to me to show that vaccines don't induce allergies, it's up to you to show that they do, and so far, nothing you have posted rises above circumstantial evidence.

Julian Frost #1190,

Then how did they prove that mercury does not cause autism?
Using pseudoscience?

Then how did they prove that mercury does not cause autism?

In several ways. They compared the symptoms of mercury poisoning to those of autism. The symptoms didn't match. They also compared the rates of autism in the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Incidentally, you were given a study way back in Comment #366 that looked at the allergy rate between the two also.
One final point: they didn't prove that mercury (in the form of thimerosal) doesn't cause autism, they disproved that it did, and yes, there's a difference.

APV: "Using pseudoscience?"

Is that the method you are using? So exactly how many children have died due to the influenza vaccine? Compare it to the pediatric mortality due to the actual disease.

APV @1191

Then how did they prove that mercury does not cause autism?

They didn’t. They tried to prove that it did, and they failed.

Julian Frost #1192,

The study in Comment #366 did not look at food allergies.

Julian Frost #1189,

"APV, I had a look at that NEJM article you posted. W.R.T. your claim that

They show 5 of 312 developed dermal sensitivity to egg white due to the egg proteins present in vaccines.

The paper suggests that vaccines might cause allergy. It does NOT confirm it. As for paper 2, the operative word (which hilariously YOU posted) is once again might. TB might have an inhibitory effect on allergies."

I did not claim, I quoted the authors. The paper does not "suggest", it reported finding dermal sensitivity.
Yes, TB might have an inhibitory effect and ALL subjects were TB patients in that study. Today's atopic kids not only have zero protection from allergy (no TB) in contrast, they are prone to allergy. You of course as usual ignore all these inconvenient facts.

You of course as usual ignore all these inconvenient facts.

Oh, the irony.

Vinu Arumugham:

You wrote,

"Once again you have admitted that parents find my posts far more credible than whatever the FDA/CDC dish out. Otherwise, why would my posts be 'dangerous'?"

This is outstanding evidence of how stupid you are (sorry, but there's really no nice way to put it, and as an engineer [well, supposedly, anyway], you will appreciate the use of appropriate terminology).

One of the difficulties you have, along with being profoundly dishonest, is that you don't understand the difference between "some" and "all," nor between "might" and "will" (or "does"). Because of your ignorance in this regard, you make such childish errors as concluding that "can't be conclusively ruled out" means exactly the same thing as "absolutely must be the case." Because of this intelligence deficit, you are incapable of participating in a rational discussion (probably about anything).

This failure of logic also causes you to emit dumb statements such as the one quoted above. Take the following assertion:

"There may be some stupid, or irrational, or ignorant, or misinformed, or biased parents who will believe things that are untrue when stated by dishonest, illogical people such as Vinu Arumugham, and those things can cause those parents to endanger their children."

Because you don't know how to think, and how to use logic, and because you don't understand the difference between "some" and "all," you consider the above assertion in all ways equivalent to,

"Parents find my posts far more credible than whatever the FDA/CDC dish out."

This is ample proof that you are an idiot, in addition to being morally bankrupt and profoundly dishonest.

I'm really quite surprised that you are an electronic engineer. The electronic engineers I've known at such companies as Cisco were intelligent, rational, and honest, but perhaps the standards of the industry have slipped gravely.

Also, you don't seem to know the difference between a fact and an assumption you choose to make in order to proceed with decision-making. They are, of course, not the same thing. Do you believe that if you make an assumption in order to be able to make a decision that the assumption is converted into a fact?

Also, why did you decide to lie about what manufacturers said regarding the contents of Polysorbate 80? Tell us what about this topic led you to decide that you were justified in fabricating information to support your position. We (and your kids) are interested in knowing your answer to that question.

^electronics

--OL

Krebiozen #1188,

"unfortunate lapse in manufacturing standards."
Which standard? When you don't have a standard, it is not an "unfortunate lapse", it is a fundamental design error.
An accident waiting to happen. Also known as Murphy's law.

"That incident led to a maximum of 10.3 cases of anaphylaxis per million doses of gelatin-containing measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella vaccines. Post-marketing surveillance in Japan picked up this increase in allergies, yet you are claiming that post-marketing surveillance has failed to pick up allergies caused by vaccines in 1 in 13 children."

Yeah, right. Anaphylaxis is where the smoking gun is obvious. Otherwise, the FDA would find a way to sweep that under the carpet too. Food allergy development/diagnosis, occurs weeks later and is very rarely reported to VAERS. Easy to sweep under the carpet. With the cocktail injected into our kids, in most cases it is impossible to pin point the cause of anaphylaxis thus making it easy to conveniently ignore that as well.

"How can this be true when you yourself have provided us with allergen levels in various vaccines provided by the manufacturers? For example, the package insert for Afluria states that it contains ovalbumin (< 1 mcg). "

I am talking about a manufacturing test used to reject lots, on violation. The Afluria number is a bench tested number. There is no specification for allergen content for vaccines manufactured in the US. Obviously, if there was a spec. you would not see this huge range of values among vendors.

"I suggested that the dermal sensitivity, not clinical allergy, that they found influenza vaccines could cause back in 1952 might have prompted vaccine manufacturers to reduced the amount of egg protein in influenza vaccines. Haven’t you heard of the precautionary principle? "

7.4 mcg/ml in 1967 to 33.8 mcg/ml of ovalbumin in 2008. That sounds like the FDA's reckless-disregard-for-vaccine-safety principle.

Precautionary principle?!
You throw caution to the wind at every turn. I am surprised to see *you* cite the precautionary principle.

The precautionary principle states that the burden of proof of vaccine safety falls on those approving the vaccines.
Here the burden is on victims like me to prove that vaccines are unsafe. The FDA has done nothing to demonstrate that the level of allergens present in vaccines are safe.

When Avantor says Polysorbate 80 is sourced from palm/coconut and does not provide a spec. for allergen content, I say we have to assume the worst. We have to assume it contains palm/coconut allergens based on the precautionary principle. You call that lying.
As WHO puts it: The precautionary principle: plan for the worst, hope for the best

http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/vaccines-an…

You (and the FDA/CDC) plan for the best and when hell breaks loose, you call it an "unfortunate lapse".

When we have the technology to make vaccines without Polysorbate 80, we have to stop using Polysorbate 80 to make vaccines per the precautionary principle.

When we have technology to make vaccines without thiomersal, we have to stop using thiomersal in vaccines per the precautionary principle. The FDA/CDC are still beating around the bush with assertions of ethyl mercury being eliminated faster then methyl mercury. Congress had to step in, stop the nonsense and enforce the precautionary principle.

So, the FDA/CDC and many posters here seem to be clueless about the precautionary principle.

"shouting “fire!”"
If you pull your head out of the sand, you will notice that there is a raging fire.

Looks like not just parents but a majority of doctors and family practitioners find my posts more credible than the FDA/CDC !?

http://www.usphs.gov/corpslinks/pharmacy/sc_career_ph_articles_4.aspx
"Family practitioners were more likely than pediatricians to believe that more research was needed, but a majority of both groups want more research to be done on the potential for neurologic effects such as autism. on the safety of newly introduced vaccines, and on vaccine additives."

In case you missed it, a majority of both groups don't believe the safety claims of the FDA/CDC. That makes you - the blind believers, the minority ...

APV:

I did not claim, I quoted the authors. The paper does not “suggest”, it reported finding dermal sensitivity.

From the article in your first link:

An editorial comment on an article published by us raised this question and maintained that it is a possibility that must be seriously entertained

The operative word is POSSIBILITY.
As for article 2, I could only access the abstract, but that was enough.

bacille Calmette–Guérin (BCG) and measles vaccination have been proposed as suppressors of allergy because of their T helper 1 (Th1)-fostering properties.

So there is a possibility that vaccines prevent allergies.
On the matter of children with allergies:

[V]accine components such as egg proteins, gelatin, and antibiotics are a potential hazard to children with severe clinical reactions to these allergens.

In other words, if the children are allergic to the ingredients, precautions should be taken. That isn't proof that vaccines induce allergies.
And now the money quote:

In conclusion, vaccination programs do not explain the increasing prevalence of allergic diseases, but individual children may uncommonly develop an allergic reaction to a vaccine.

The very source you posted refutes you, APV.
"Vaccination programs do not explain the increasing prevalence of allergic diseases."

When Avantor says Polysorbate 80 is sourced from palm/coconut and does not provide a spec. for allergen content, I say we have to assume the worst.

That it contains "kosher tapioca"?

"We"?

You demonstrate a steadfast resolve to exempt yourself from showing basic plausibility. You've demonstrated time and again that you have no freaking idea how polysorbate manufacturing works and that you're perfectly content with that situation.

Hey, who am I?

Are spices and peanut oil used in excipients? The excipient makers have to tell us. The FDA has to force them to tell us.

This is complete gibberish. You don't care, because your intellectual dishonesty is part and parcel of the overt dishonesty that led to your lying about being a medical student.

APV,
I'm not going to repeat myself yet again, while adding the precautionary principle to the long list of things you apparently don't understand. You do bring up a couple of new points:

When we have technology to make vaccines without thiomersal, we have to stop using thiomersal in vaccines per the precautionary principle. The FDA/CDC are still beating around the bush with assertions of ethyl mercury being eliminated faster then methyl mercury. Congress had to step in, stop the nonsense and enforce the precautionary principle.

That's very misleading account of what happened. It was the USPHS and AAP who supported reduction of thimerosal despite concluding that there was, "no evidence of harm caused by doses of thimerosal found in vaccines, except for local hypersensitivity reactions".

The AAP have subsequently stated (PDF) that if we had known then what we know now, thimerosal would would likely not have been removed from most vaccines. Here's what they said in full:

Overwhelmingly, the evidence collected over the past 15 years has failed to yield any evidence of significant harm, including serious neurodevelopmental disorders, from use of thimerosal in vaccines. Dozens of studies from countries around the world have supported the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines. Specifically, the Institute of Medicine, and others have concluded that the evidence favors rejection of a link between thimerosal and autism.

Careful studies of the risk of other serious neurodevelopmental disorders have failed to support a causal link with thimerosal. In May 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics retired its 1999 statement on thimerosal after evaluating new studies. [...] Had the evidence that is available now been available in 1999, the policy reducing thimerosal use would likely have not been implemented. Furthermore, in 2008 the World Health Organization (WHO) endorsed the use of thimerosal in vaccines.

Yet another unfounded vaccine scare that cost a fortune, increased people's concerns and had no positive effect on people's health whatsoever.

Looks like not just parents but a majority of doctors and family practitioners find my posts more credible than the FDA/CDC !?

It looks like you have a serious reading comprehension problem, yet again. Allow me to explain it to you through the medium of embolding the relevant passages:

Nearly 70 percent of doctors surveyed nationally for the study said that parent worries have risen recently, and more than a third of the physicians reported their own concerns had also increased. [...]
Doctors in the survey who reported their concern had grown were much more likely to believe that further research on vaccine safety was warranted by the recent events. Family practitioners were more likely than pediatricians to believe that more research was needed, but a majority of both groups want more research to be done on the potential for neurologic effects such as autism. on the safety of newly introduced vaccines, and on vaccine additives.

It is it not true that a majority of doctors and family practitioners expressed concern about vaccine safety, more than a third of them did, and those did not state that they were concerned that vaccines cause food allergies.

It sounds worrying but that study was conducted in 2001, not long after there was a rotavirus scare about intersussception and thimerosal was removed from most vaccines. We have new safer rotavirus vaccines now, and we know that the thimerosal scare was unfounded. Physician confidence in vaccines has been increasing since then with most family physicians and pediatricians reporting confidence in post-licensure vaccine safety studies in 2013.

Julian Frost,

The operative word is POSSIBILITY.

I looked more closely at that paper. The first paper APV linked to described children being injected with egg-protein-containing vaccines 11 to 35 times over a period of 12-27 months. A small number of children (1.6%) developed dermal sensitivity to egg but no clinical egg sensitivity developed, despite two of them being injected with egg-protein-containing vaccines 35 times.

I think that's good evidence against injected egg-protein-containing vaccines causing clinical allergy to egg.

APV/vinucube/Vinu Arumugham:

Thank you so much for publicly posting yet another example of how dishonest you are. It is very important for any parents who may come across this thread to see such clear-cut proof that you lie as easily as you breathe.

You wrote,

"When Avantor says Polysorbate 80 is sourced from palm/coconut and does not provide a spec. for allergen content, I say we have to assume the worst. We have to assume it contains palm/coconut allergens based on the precautionary principle. You call that lying."

No. What we call lying is your fabricating statements supposedly made by others, and making up fake "facts" to bolster your argument (which, it follows, would fail if you didn't make things up to support it).

Please compare the two following claims of yours:

"When Avantor says Polysorbate 80 is sourced from palm/coconut and does not provide a spec. for allergen content, I say we have to assume the worst."

"[Phuong Tang of Avantor stated to me in an email that] they have palm oil and coconut oil in their Polysorbate 80.”

The first statement is not a lie (it's just you stating a decision you've made), nor does it contain an embedded lie.

The second statement is a lie, told by you.

You do realize that it's very telling that you have been evading addressing this point for many days now. Everyone reading this will know why that is; because you're a dishonest coward. You won't address this comment either, which is constructive proof that you admit lying, as you have done about so many other things.

This thread is so many kinds of crazy I was finally compelled to comment. My youngest boy died (22) 5 years ago at the tale end of the first southern hemisphere wave of novel h1n1. No vaccine. The young medical student who was fighting for life at the same time is now a poster child for flu vacs. My boy died after a rare reaction to a common virus. If I could have saved his life in exchange for a food allergy, yeahh!

This thread is so many kinds of crazy I was finally compelled to comment.

You have my sympathy already, Biblia, but if you have read through this entire thread, than you have it even more.

Thank you herr doctor bimler. The death of my boy has led me into so much science and sketpicism that I can no longer spell!!! Aarghh.

I'd like to extend my condolences for the loss of your beloved son, biblia. (If you think this thread is crazy, stick around to see just how crazy Respectful Insolence can get). :-)

British Medical Journal
Are US flu death figures more PR than science?
http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7529/1412

"People don't necessarily die, per se, of the [flu] virus -- the viraemia," said Dr. David Rosenthal, director of Harvard University Health Services. "What they die of is a secondary pneumonia."

matt,

“People don’t necessarily die, per se, of the [flu] virus — the viraemia,” said Dr. David Rosenthal, director of Harvard University Health Services. “What they die of is a secondary pneumonia.”

You could say the same for secondary infections after HIV, measles, hip fractures and abdominal gunshot wounds. In all cases avoiding the primary cause also avoids the potentially lethal sequelae. Prevention is better than cure, isn't it?

I agree prevention is the best cure. That is why a healthy immune system is important to maintain. I would postulate that influenza has never killed or harmed a healthy individual with a strong immune system. I also feel that prevention does not necessarily come in the form of a needle.

A wise man once said, “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.”

@Matt - pardon the language, but you are full of crap.

The 1918 Pandemic Flu as more lethal to those who were "young and healthy" - it was their healthy immune response that was ultimately the cause of their death.

Krebiozen #1212,

"Prevention is better than cure, isn’t it?"

Certainly not! We are actively looking to cure food allergy.
There is absolutely no interest in trying to prevent it.

I would postulate that influenza has never killed or harmed a healthy individual with a strong immune system.

There's a level of ignorance that one doesn't see every day. Ever heard of 1918, Matt?

@APV:

We are actively looking to cure food allergy.
There is absolutely no interest in trying to prevent it.

Given that there is no "cure" for allergies yet, and given that people have died from allergies, there is a great deal of interest in preventing food allergies.

Matt @1213 said

I would postulate that influenza has never killed or harmed a healthy individual with a strong immune system. I also feel that prevention does not necessarily come in the form of a needle.

A wise man once said, “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.”

Suppose you wanted to actually prove, rather than merely assume, that influenza has never harmed a healthy individual with a strong immune system.

1. How do you define "a healthy individual" in this context?
2. How do you measure how strong someone's immune system is? How do you know that?
3. What studies have been done to show that individuals with a measured strong immune system has never been harmed by influenza? Where were these studies published?
4. Given a statistically large population, could you determine in advance which would be harmed by influenza and which would not? How? How do you know that?
5. You imply there are foods that strengthen the immune system. Which foods? How is that measured? How do you know that?

Note that any proof of your assumption that uses infection by influenza as the test is fundamentally a tautology, and no more meaningful than saying that only people who are haunted by ghosts are killed or harmed by influenza (proof: the people who weren't killed weren't haunted by ghosts, so the people who were must have been - even if they didn't know it).

Julian Frost #1217
"there is a great deal of interest in preventing food allergies."

This long thread started with my comment about peanut in Polysorbate 80.
This document:
http://askavantor.force.com/servlet/fileField?id=0BEG0000000TSTm

says:
"Rev. 7; March 30, 2011 – Section 4: Added peanuts
to the Allergen list; Corrected residual
solvents info for Ethylene glycol; minor formatting. (JLW) "

So Avantor was unable to guarantee that this Polysorbate 80 was not contaminated with peanuts, before 2011.
Today, you will see Avantor specifically claiming their product is of non-peanut origin.

Given the history of "poorly hydrolyzed gelatin" and "very trace" milk contamination of vaccines, we now also have documented evidence of peanut proteins contaminating vaccines.

If anyone is serious about preventing food allergies, removing food proteins from vaccines would be a good start.

we now also have documented evidence of peanut proteins contaminating vaccines

You've already more than adequately demonstrated your inability to either read or think, thanks.

APV, you are once again being thoroughly disingenuous.

So Avantor was unable to guarantee that this Polysorbate 80 was not contaminated with peanuts, before 2011

is not, in your words "documented evidence of peanut proteins contaminating vaccines", no matter how much you think it is.

It's not even evidence that they were "unable to guarantee" anything;

This product is manufactured from oleic acid of palm, coconut, or sunflower origin, sorbitol from corn, and ethylene oxide from petrochemical origin.

The palm, coconut, sunflower, ethylene oxide are non-GMO materials.

The peanut comes from where, again? And who pays a premium for freaking GMO-free PS-80 in vaccine manufacture?

I'm very concerned about polysorbate 80 containing unicorn droppings. Why isn't that on the list of things that aren't in it?

Julian Frost, Narad, Krebiozen #1221, #1222, #1223,

Why was peanut added to the "do not contain" list only in 2011?
Why does Avantor now emphasize that their Polysorbate 80 is of non-peanut origin, if no one ever makes peanut sourced Polysorbate 80?

@Vinu Arumugham:

Why does Avantor now emphasize that their Polysorbate 80 is of non-peanut origin, if no one ever makes peanut sourced Polysorbate 80?

If you think you get a reboot of your screamingly willful ignorance of how oleic acid is (1) obtained from raw product and (2) ethoxylated, you are sorely mistaken. Stick to Topix.

BTW, are you still lying about being a medical student over at Medscape? I'm pretty sure that there are people around who could try to help remedy that situation.

At a wild guess, because someone asked them about peanuts and possible allergies. We are living in a culture that has maple syrup explicitly labeled as a fat-free food. That doesn't mean other brands of maple syrup, or for that matter cane sugar, contain fat.

You do realize that Tautology of the above argument. (1218, etc)

A " healthy individual" is one that does not die of flu, therefore a healthy individual has never died of flu.

Also, the potential mass of peanut material in a vaccine is so infinitesimally tiny as to be of the same level of exposure as walking past a lays potatoe chip facility or a White Castle. Pharmaceutical grade materials are of very high purity, only chromographic grade being higher.

Colonel Tom #1227,

"Pharmaceutical grade materials are of very high purity"
Please post a pointer to the specification (ng/ml allowed?)
And also please post the study showing what level of peanut protein in a vaccine is safe.

Vicki #1226,

Their "do not contain" list has several allergens, why only market it as a non-peanut origin product? What's the value of that claim, if every other Polysorbate 80 on the market is also of non-peanut origin?

@Vinu Arumugham:

Please respond in detail to my comment #1225. There are only two points, which should be well within your grasp as a circuit jockey (and apparently being called out on that when you surface) with plain fraudulence as an acceptable operating principle.

Their “do not contain” list has several allergens, why only market it as a non-peanut origin product? What’s the value of that claim, if every other Polysorbate 80 on the market is also of non-peanut origin?

I see, it didn't contain peanut until they said it didn't contain peanut. Well played.

^ Please add tedious blockquote note.

"Pharm grade matter" is a regulatory definition dealing with the standards of purity in materials. If you wish to enter the exciting field of pharm regulatory compliance, you can start by reading
21 CFR 210, 21 CFR 211, 21 CFR 820. My end of career background had much more to do with 40 CFR 70 and 51, but I certainly had enough overlap to know that Pharm grade is high purity.

As far as what level of peanut program could possibly cause an adverse reaction, since we are talking about pico and nanograms here, I have to refer you to first principles. A substance with no detectable effect upon a system.

Otherwise, you could show an increase in autism and any affect for those living within a mile of a Jif plant. I've seen those studies, no detectable effect.

Colonel Tom @1227

A ” healthy individual” is one that does not die of flu, therefore a healthy individual has never died of flu.

Indeed, I think we can take it one step further. Once a "healthy individual" catches influenza, that person is now a "sick individual", thus no longer healthy. It should be obvious that no person who doesn't have flu can die of flu.

APV:

Because it's marketing. Did you miss the point of my example, that one brand of maple syrup being labeled "a fat-free food" doesn't mean that other maple syrup contains fat?

@Vicki, An undergrad friend of mine, and one of the few minds I've ever encountered that I considered to be "an intellectual level" above my own abillity, did a summer internship at the P&G Jif plant. While he was working there, Jif changed the packaging to include the phrase "cholesterol-free". As David Hardin ranted in a little article published in the honors program, peanut butter has never had cholesterol, will never have cholesterol and the weeks he spent fixing old stock were, at best, less than productive.

As I said, when it wrote about it, it was funny.

@Mephistopheles O'Brien. I will not preclude the possibility that someone has died after being hit by a hearse carrying a dead flu victim to the graveyard. Since no one can prove that has never happened, I must fixated upon the possibility of a maniac hearse driver, his vehicle overloaded with the bodies of the flu-deceased with underlying health problems, careening across the lane on the hill up to my home, plunging us all to the river valley below.

Also, there was the old joke, no longer true, that everyone dies of heart stoppage. Cause of death used to be legally considered to be determined by heart stoppage, thus my little jest about my first "death" of 4.7 minutes from Amphotericin B.

Did you know that the leading cause of death is conception?

Indeed. Life is, as I like to say, a sexually transmitted 100% fatal disease. :-)

@Mephistopheles O'Brien, we actually have a religious saying about that. "Life is a gift, none know the length nor worth of the gift, but appreciate and take joy in all days as granted."

Now, we could launch into a heated and meaningless debate that since all conceptions do not lead to a birth, in my personal experience at least 8 conceptions never made it past the 15th week. Since all conceptions do not lead to death, than we're just going to invalidate your whole premise for no logical and describable reason. To quote Richard Nixon, "We could do that, but it would be wrong".

Shootfire, we could also argue that if only 1 out of 9+ conceptions lead to birth, if that statistically proves a genetic incompatibility, a structural problem in the beloved one's lady parts or if we could just attribute that to pure chance. If 1/4 conceptions fail, then what are the odds of 8+ in a row failing. We could do that, but to quote the Pythons, that would be too silly.

APV/Vinu Arumugham:

Your problem is that you lie a lot, and you are too cowardly to address your numerous lies that have been exposed here. You are a deeply dishonest person. You have no integrity. You fabricate evidence in support of your position.

For example, you stated that Phuong Tang of Avantor told you in an email that Avantor's Polysorbate 80 contains palm oil and coconut oil.

That's a lie; you made that up. And everyone who reads this thread, now and in the future (perhaps after searching for your name, in order to find out whether you are honest or dishonest) will know that you lied about that.

Have you taught your children that it's OK to lie to get something they want? They will inevitably discover how dishonest a person you are, and they will probably ask you for an explanation.

What will that explanation be?

Colonel Tom - I agree that not all conceptions lead to births; however, the vast majority human deaths are preceded by conception. Coincidence? I think not.

Vicki #1235,

They use labels like fat-free or cholesterol-free because there is a market for them.
Injectable grade Polysrobate 80 is sold to pharmaceutical companies. There is a market for Polysorbate 80 of non-peanut origin because pharmaceutical companies have found:

1. Polysorbate 80 of peanut origin contains residual peanut proteins.
2. Peanut proteins in pharmaceutical products cause harm.

Colonel Tom #1233,

The fact is there are no studies or specifications for safe dose of peanut allergen in injectable products. Please prove me wrong by posting a spec. or study. You don't engineer vaccines with terms like "very high purity". You need a spec. "Very trace" amounts of casein, 8-18 ng/ml in DTaP/TdaP have caused anaphylaxis because there was no specification for casein in vaccines.

Polysorbate 80 of non-peanut origin because pharmaceutical companies have found:

1. Polysorbate 80 of peanut origin contains residual peanut proteins.

Vinu, it has been well established that you are dishonest, but you've just added delusional to that.

APV:

Polysorbate 80 of peanut origin contains residual peanut proteins.

Given that you were shown that peanuts have never been used to manufacture polysorbate 80, all I can say is that you are delusional.

APV is as delusional and single-minded as MjD - perhaps they can form the core of a barbershop quartet....

Julian Frost #1245,

"Given that you were shown that peanuts have never been used to manufacture polysorbate 80."

Where and when was that shown?

@APV Prove to me that vaccines are not manufactured according to specifications in the CFR. Prove to me that pharmaceutical grade reagents are not required.

Cause, I know they do.

APV:

“Given that you were shown that peanuts have never been used to manufacture polysorbate 80.”

Where and when was that shown?

Narad pointed it out in his comment #1222.

Julian Frost #1249,

Narad is talking about their current product. I am talking about what they were shipping before the 2011 revision of their datasheet.

Colonel Tom #1248,

Where in the CFR are allergen limits for vaccines/excipients specified?
I know they don't because the FDA, USP and Sanofi Pasteur confirmed that to me.

APV, so because the company revised its datasheet, it must also have changed its product formulation? Is that what you're arguing? Seriously?

Narad is talking about their current product. I am talking about what they were shipping before the 2011 revision of their datasheet.

No, I am talking about your being a delusional liar who, lacking the ability or inclination to so much as make the slightest effort to try to understand the manufacturing process despite ample pointers has now been reduced to trying to pass off completely insane shіt such as

Polysorbate 80 of non-peanut origin because pharmaceutical companies have found:

1. Polysorbate 80 of peanut origin contains residual peanut proteins.

because you thought you had snagged a "live one" in Vicki.

APV, so because the company revised its datasheet, it must also have changed its product formulation? Is that what you’re arguing? Seriously?

See "tapioca, 'kosher'."

Julian Frost #1252, Narad #1254,

No, they changed the product (from peanut origin to other sources). They THEREFORE updated the datasheet to reflect the change in the product.

Direct question, APV: do you have any evidence whatsoever demonstrating vaccines ever contained Polysorbate 80 made from peanuts?

Or does your entire argument take no form other than "Well, it COULD have happened--couldn't it?"

Anyone growing bored with the dubious horrors of surfactants made from peanut oil might like to have a look at Intralipid and "Milk of Amnesia" (propofol).
Intralipid, used in substantial quantities for parenteral nutrition, including (with some extra precautions) for premature infants, contains up to 30% soybean oil and 1.2% phospholipids from eggy wegs, o my brothers. Propofol, a widely used IV anesthetic, contains the same ingredients.
Soybeans! Eggs! Up there in the top ten list of food allergens. Yet somehow components thereof are readily purified for large volume IV administration.

No, they changed the product (from peanut origin to other sources).

You are so G-ddamned dishonest that you would do well to figure out when it's time to quit trying to attract attention.

I mean, couldn't Avantor's Phuong Tang supply you with earlier versions?

I asked APV:

APV, so because the company revised its datasheet, it must also have changed its product formulation? Is that what you’re arguing? Seriously?

APV replied:

No, they changed the product (from peanut origin to other sources). They THEREFORE updated the datasheet to reflect the change in the product.

I guess that answers my question.
APV, companies update their datasheets all the time without altering their products.
I repeat what I said before. You got nothin'.

@Politicalguineapig #426

"An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it" -- Orlando Aloysius Battista {and Kennedy's 1961 address, The President and the Press, et al.}

^^Well, maybe not time-sensitive errors: The landing gear on an aircraft during final approach or the jettisoning out of it without first applying parachute, the 3'rd shift forgetting to top off the water in the nuclear reactor before leaving the key and locking the door on the way out, ..., accidentally 'sexting' your mom.

I have made an error and I fear harm has been done but, in the interest of 'harm reduction', I am now attempting to correct it. It seems 'Providence' foresaw the poorly thought out critique and gave me many hours of grace period to ammend my statement. I, on the other hand, stubbornly and impulsively, foolishly stompy-foot wished it published.

In my comment #316, I have committed abuse of artistic liscence gross awkward embellishment. For the stated circumstance of my 'sliding away' was not generally characteristic of that part of The Body of which I was an 'active' participant; Rather, it was weak rationalization and broad-brush mischaracterization after the fact. This dissimulation for public consumption and the rest of that problematic paragraph, borders on my having bore false witness against the church, my father, and, to a matter of degree, myself. For this, I am remorseful and I apologize.

JGC #1256,

I have shown that versions of injectable grade Polysorbate 80 contain peanut protein. It matters little if it were injected as part of a vaccine or a Vitamin K1 injection. It made people sick.
And it is injectable grade so they inject it. They don't use it in food.

The MMR vaccine contains 11-14 mg of hydrolyzed gelatin.
According to many posters here, hydrolyzed gelatin is 100% free of allergen because it goes through "hydrolyzation hell".

If it is guaranteed to be free of allergen "by definition", then why does the MMR package insert carry a warning for people who are allergic to gelatin?

The fact is, they cannot guarantee MMR is free of gelatin allergen. As I have shown before, if MMR has enough allergen to elicit a response, it has more than enough to cause sensitization. So, MMR vaccines can cause gelatin allergy. MMR also contain 14.5 mg of sorbitol. Sorbitol is made from various food sources. So you get the idea ...

Julian Frost #1259,

So Avantor figured out after producing the product for 4 years (2007-2011) that they left peanut out of the datasheet? And then they coincidentally start marketing the product as "of non-peanut origin"? Need a lot of salt to swallow that ...

So, MMR vaccines can cause gelatin allergy. MMR also contain 14.5 mg of sorbitol. Sorbitol is made from various food sources. So you get the idea …

Yes, I'm sure that everyone "got the idea" a long fυcking time ago. The problem is that you are not just demonstrably dishonest in the conventional sense, but mentally lazy as shіt, enthusiastically and stalwartly ignorant of what you imagine to be your "field of expertise," and proud as fυcking hell of the debasement.

APV:

I have shown that versions of injectable grade Polysorbate 80 contain peanut protein.

No you haven't. You have come up with an absurd theory that vaccines provoke allergies and you have twisted, distorted and begged the question to find "evidence" for your hypothesis. None of the so-called evidence you have posted rises to the standard of proof.

So Avantor figured out after producing the product for 4 years (2007-2011) that they left peanut out of the datasheet? And then they coincidentally start marketing the product as “of non-peanut origin”? Need a lot of salt to swallow that

Not at all. The most likely scenario is that someone (or more than just one) contacted them looking for information and they updated their datasheet. However, one does need a lot of salt to swallow that they were using peanuts then changed their formulation. You have shown how little you know about mass production already.

So you still believe those CDC numbers, huh?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/death-by-influenza_b_4661…

Here is another oldie but goodie...

Any M.D. willing to dring (not inject) all the perservatives and adjuvants in thier equivalent body weight ajusted amounts can have $75,000 instantly. To this day there are no takers.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/07/19/75-000-of…

Thanks for confirming, once again, that you're a nutjob Matt.

So you run away from your utterly brain-dead comment that "I would postulate that influenza has never killed or harmed a healthy individual with a strong immune system" and then ooze back around waving Mercola and Lawrence Freaking Solomon?

Good L-rd.

Dr. John Kelso writes:
"The fact that the skin tests were positive suggests that these were in fact an IgE mediated reactions, perhaps to the viral proteins themselves."
http://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/influenza-vaccine-anaphylaxis.aspx

Not only do people synthesize IgE and develop allergy to injected viral proteins contained in vaccines, Dr. Kelso thinks it can even result in anaphylaxis on subsequent exposure.
When vaccines/injections contaminated with food proteins are injected, do we expect the immune system to magically behave in a different manner?

Once again, APV, where is your proof that vaccines are "contaminated"?

Vinu Arumugham, just how badly do you desire your fraud upon Medscape to be brought to light?

I'm new to this site. I hope after moderation this comment will be accepted. I am someone who is interested in engaging in dialogue with the true believers in modern science. Vaccines are a good place to start- GMOs even better. I think modern science is both good and bad and right and wrong. Modern science was originally meant to be completely open-minded and to follow the evidence. Because the human mind works along symbolic, mythic and religious structures, probably because we need faith since we cannot know the future or past with any certitude, I see here a fanaticism in regards to faith in modern science.

I love the enthusiasm for Science here. I also love the enthusiasm at a festival honoring Ganesh where everyone is throwing around turmeric and wearing flowers. It's all good. What I don't like are mandates based on the faith of one sect of true believers meant to control others who do not share the same belief system. Like vaccine mandates. Or witch hunts. Or pogroms.

Science has been horribly terribly wrong. (Thalidomide, frontal lobotomies, bleeding therapy, mercury therapy- it's a long list). Science has been used for evil. (Mengele and the Nazi doctors some of whom were brought to the US after WW2). Science has created some horrible things. (Nuclear bombs, killer drones, MK-Ultra).

Science contradicts itself, which is a good thing. But faith based scientists don't like to admit that science contradicts itself. It turns out to be very hard to get real certitude with science beyond the basic physical chemical level. As soon as a complex living system is studied like a human being, all certitude essentially vanishes. (Frankly the certitude vanishes even at the chemical physical level, but it does remain predictable, unlike humans). Science likes to believe in laws that were created at the instant of the big bang and that they have always been and always will be inviolable tenets of reality: like gravity or the second law of thermodynamics. But when evidence is brought forth contradicting these laws, most scientists ignore it. (Read "The Science Delusion" by scientist Rupert Sheldrake for details.) Even to actually believe in the Big Bang is an extreme act of religious faith. There is an enormous amount of scientific evidence against the big bang. But most faith based scientists believe wholeheartedly in it, because a human being has to believe in something. If not God then Science will have to do.

Which brings us to vaccines, one of modern science's greatest inventions according to many true believers. There is an enormous amount of scientific evidence that vaccines can and do have negative consequences. It is undeniable, except on this blog. Let's take the Disneyland brouhaha. Let's take the boy whose parents think he got the measles at Disneyland. The boy who could not be vaccinated because he was too young. It is very likely that he (if he does actually have the measles) contracted it from someone who was recently vaccinated, since vaccinated people shed live measles virus.

Personally I wouldn't take an immune compromised boy to Disneyland.

At the very least it should be obvious that we are over-vaccinating our children based on faith-based Science. Vaccinating a one day old baby for a virus that it cannot get unless the mother has it is not very intelligent. But not to a true believer. Why test the mother? Just stick the kid.

It seems perfectly obvious that tampering with an unformed immune system almost immediately upon birth might just harm that immune system, might just make it dysfunctional and lead to severe food allergies or asthma down the road. This is simple basic common sense and logic. But not to a true believer in "Science", which is weird because it is based on scientific thinking.

Even when someone comes forward (CDC whistleblower says that data showed that vaccines created autism in younger children vaccinated by MMR shot) this direct evidence is denied, even when it only makes perfect and logical sense and is backed by hard science. But a true believer will still deny it.

I love science but I am open minded and very willing to criticize it when it is wrong. I love alternative medicine and am very willing to criticize it when it is wrong. The intensity and personal nature of the attacks thrown at ADV here for very reasonable logical objections to over-vaccination seem to suggest a severe case of faith-based scientism on the rampage. Vaccines can and do harm some people and it should be the choice of the individual (in the land of the free) to decide for themselves, based on all the available science and common sense and personal experience, what to do for themselves and their children.

Especially since 100% vaccinated populations have come down with the measles. Herd Immunity seems quite similar to the Second Coming of the Messiah. I don't mean to insult scientists with religious metaphors...but I do know they will be taken that way. I really do think that modern science has become a religion. Peace out, Ginko

Read “The Science Delusion” by scientist Rupert Sheldrake for details.

*plonk*

The Fallacy of Nirvana is Strong with this one.
(and a few others)

Ginko. Go read the archives of Respectful Insolence for the last 10 years. Go read the scientific articles Orac and commenters were linking to.
Your arguments have been addressed a thousand times already on these past threads.
Then come back telling us you are open-minded and we are following a religion.

Especially since 100% vaccinated populations have come down with the measles. Herd Immunity seems quite similar to the Second Coming of the Messiah.

Just because it's bugging me, but I get tired of repeating this point in answer to all antivax religious zealots (eh, if Ginko has the right to call other people religious bigots, so do I):

The measles vaccine is only 95% effective, so "100% vaccinated populations" will have about 5% of people getting the measles nonetheless. Which, from a health management standpoint, is a lot better than >80% of a non-vaccinated population getting it (before vaccination, everybody was getting wild measles, don't you know it?.

Now, look at the recent measles outbreak around Disneyland.
Most people who caught measles were not vaccinated.
Non-vaccinated people are a minority in the US.
It is as if the virus was targeting them.

And herd immunity is not about personal resistance to infection. It's about people around you being less likely to catch a bug and passing it to you, because these people have met the bug before, either the wild form or the one in the vaccine, and are more resistant to it.
Someone sick with measles typically give it to 18-20 people around him/her, in a naive (non-immune) population. See how fast America's ancient inhabitants got it from European explorers/settlers. If, during the current outbreak, the rate of infection is inferior to that (say, only 5 or 6 people getting it from someone else), then you have herd immunity at work. Nothing more, nothing less.

Julian Frost #1270,

"Once again, APV, where is your proof that vaccines are “contaminated”?"

The CDC/FDA say so.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipi…

Ginko #1272,

Thank you!

Ginko,

Which brings us to vaccines, one of modern science’s greatest inventions according to many true believers. There is an enormous amount of scientific evidence that vaccines can and do have negative consequences.

An enormous amount of scientific evidence tells us that most adverse events associated with vaccinations are mild, and that severe adverse events are so rare it is often difficult to tell if they are really associated with vaccination or not.

It is undeniable, except on this blog.

I don't remember seeing anyone deny the existence of rare side effects here.

Let’s take the Disneyland brouhaha.

Which, let's be clear, has little or nothing to do with side effects of vaccines.

Let’s take the boy whose parents think he got the measles at Disneyland. The boy who could not be vaccinated because he was too young. It is very likely that he (if he does actually have the measles) contracted it from someone who was recently vaccinated, since vaccinated people shed live measles virus.

I'm not sure which little boy you are referring to. Seven people were definitely infected with measles at Disneyland and there are currently 114 infected people associated with the outbreak. The virus causing that outbreak has been genotyped and is not a vaccine strain, it's the same wild strain as that currently responsible for an outbreak in the Phillipines.

By the way, over half a billion doses of MMR have been given, yet (as far as I know) only one case of measles transmitted by a vaccinated person has ever been reported, and that was not confirmed to be a vaccine strain.

Personally I wouldn’t take an immune compromised boy to Disneyland.

Until recently it would have been safe, as measles was eliminated from the US. Are you referring to the daughter of a pediatrician who is recovering from leukemia and who was exposed to measles in a clinic, not Disneyland, by another patient? Should children with cancer have to avoid clinics and hospitals because some parents refuse to vaccinate their children?

At the very least it should be obvious that we are over-vaccinating our children based on faith-based Science.

Obvious to whom, based on what?

Vaccinating a one day old baby for a virus that it cannot get unless the mother has it is not very intelligent. But not to a true believer. Why test the mother? Just stick the kid.

The tears, saliva, sweat, and urine of children with hepatitis B contain high levels of the virus:

Children with chronic HBV are more prone than adults to be HBV e antigen positive and to have a high viral load. At the same time, children are more likely to have contact with each other’s body fluids, such as saliva and tears, and therefore have a high risk of horizontal transmission. Horizontal transmission is especially important in children who are at a high risk of acquiring chronic, asymptomatic infection when exposed to HBV. That children often are asymptomatic after infection with HBV lets them enter the large pool of chronic carriers unnoticed.

Using a remarkably safe vaccine to give a child (probable) lifelong immunity to a contagious and incurable disease that kills 2,000–4,000 people every year in the US is "not very intelligent"? Read the paper I linked to.

It seems perfectly obvious that tampering with an unformed immune system almost immediately upon birth might just harm that immune system, might just make it dysfunctional and lead to severe food allergies or asthma down the road.

Yet large studies find no association between vaccination and allergies or autoimmune diseases.

This is simple basic common sense and logic. But not to a true believer in “Science”, which is weird because it is based on scientific thinking.

When large, well-designed scientific studies find that vaccines do not harm the immune system, is it really scientific thinking to continue insisting that it does? Who are the true believers here, those following the evidence, or those who only accept evidence that supports what they already believe?

Even when someone comes forward (CDC whistleblower says that data showed that vaccines created autism in younger children vaccinated by MMR shot) this direct evidence is denied, even when it only makes perfect and logical sense and is backed by hard science. But a true believer will still deny it.

On the contrary, anyone with a basic understanding of study design and statistics can see that Hooker's 'study' is horribly flawed and that the so-called CDC whistle-blower doesn't understand statistics. It's the people who still believe it who are the true believers, unswayable by the evidence.

I love science but I am open minded and very willing to criticize it when it is wrong. I love alternative medicine and am very willing to criticize it when it is wrong.

If you love science, how is it that you have come to believe that the Disneyland measles outbreak is vaccine-derived? Or that the only way a child can get HBV is from its mother? Or that Hooker's execrable paper is valid?

The intensity and personal nature of the attacks thrown at ADV here for very reasonable logical objections to over-vaccination seem to suggest a severe case of faith-based scientism on the rampage. Vaccines can and do harm some people and it should be the choice of the individual (in the land of the free) to decide for themselves, based on all the available science and common sense and personal experience, what to do for themselves and their children.

APV has repeatedly lied about the ingredients of vaccines, and insists that they are causing food allergies despite not having a shred of evidence to support this. S/he persists even when his/her lies are pointed out. Is that really OK with you? If you really believe that getting measles, which kills 1 in 1,000 children who contract it and causes serious illness like encephalitis and pneumonia in many more, is safer than MMR which has never killed anyone, I have to seriously question the love of science you profess.

Especially since 100% vaccinated populations have come down with the measles.

That's because the vaccine is about 97% effective, Do you claim that seat belts are useless because some people wearing them still get hurt in car accidents?

Herd Immunity seems quite similar to the Second Coming of the Messiah.

Not to anyone who has the slightest understanding of how herd immunity works it doesn't. If I am not immune to measles but everyone I come into contact with is immune, how can I possibly catch measles? That's how herd immunity works, in a similar way to fire-breaks preventing the spread of forest fires.

I don’t mean to insult scientists with religious metaphors…but I do know they will be taken that way. I really do think that modern science has become a religion.

Give the misinformation you have posted here, I strongly suspect that's because you don't understand it at all.

I wonder where these "100% vaccinated populations" are being found. At minimum, they would have to be entirely isolated groups that included no children too young to be vaccinated, with proof of recent vaccination for everyone else (not relying on assumptions or memories of what people were told about their childhood vaccines).

A population doesn't stop at the legal borders of a town; the unvaccinated person who delivers the heating oil or works in the same building as your vaccinated neighbor is part of the population; are their spouses, neighbors, and children vaccinated?

APV, I opened that link. I then did word search for "peanut". Nothing came up. I then looked at the very first paragraph. I've bolded the relevant part.

This table includes not only vaccine ingredients (e.g., adjuvants and preservatives), but also substances used during the manufacturing process,
including vaccine-production media, that are removed from the final product and present only in trace quantities.

Trace quantities. That's not "contamination".

http://www.excipientfest.com/europe/pdf/EFE14%20June%2024,%20A1%20The%2…

"How is excipient
manufacture regulated?
• To the surprise of many the
manufacture and supply of excipients
is unregulated by any agency
• European legislation puts the onus on
the user, the MA holder to ensure that
starting materials are of a ‘suitable’
standard"

Does that inspire much confidence in vaccine/injection safety?

Julian Frost #1280,

You will notice there are numerous food protein contaminants including ovalbumin, yeast, soy, gelatin, casein etc. listed. Then of course there are undeclared contaminants in Polysorbate 80 and sorbitol derived from food sources. Then you have the undeclared contents of the growth media.

Trace quantity is too much when "very trace" quantity can cause anaphylaxis.

“very trace milk protein” in DPT is causing anaphylaxis.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AAAAI/25520

"We were struck by the fact that just in our practice we had seven patients with milk allergy who had these severe reactions and we believe it is due to contamination of milk protein in this vaccine."

http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(11)00747-0/fulltext
8-18ng/ml of casein is the "very trace" contaminant that caused anaphylaxis.
And it has been shown that you need less than an elicitation dose to cause sensitization.

So, when you are talking about vaccines (a supposedly scientific endeavor), you would hope the CDC/FDA will use somewhat less ambiguous terminology and actual quantities instead of such utter nonsense as "trace quantities".

The FDA/CDC's "trace quantities", are life-threatening levels of contamination.

Krebiozen 1278#,

If a study shows problems with vaccine safety, the study design and statistics MUST be flawed.
If the study shows vaccines are safe, no one cares what study design or statistics are used (except may be the Cochrane people).
Apart from all the CDC/FDA problems I have pointed out, you have now added "horrible", "execrable" study performed by the CDC, by people who do not "understand statistics". That should surely add confidence to vaccine safety?

For all these studies, statistics and fantastic medical advances, there's one little question nobody in the medical community can answer ...
Why can't you safely open a packet of peanuts in an aircraft cabin today?

Once again, Vinu Arumugham:

I have shown that versions of injectable grade Polysorbate 80 contain peanut protein.

No, you haven't.

You've demonstrated a number of things, such as that you're willing to trot out nonsense and then just run the hell away when called out on it and that you lie about being a medical student over a Medscape because you're desperate for attention to your idée fixe, among other unsavory traits, but you've never managed to do this.

there’s one little question nobody in the medical community can answer …
Why can’t you safely open a packet of peanuts in an aircraft cabin today?

That's true, you have to watch it. Last time I tried to open one of these little bags, my elbow jabbed the guy next to me in the jaw.

Seriously. A bag full of peanut., in other word full of allergens, about to get into aerosol What's the "little question nobody in the medical community can answer "?
Is APV trying to say that peanut allergies are due to their non-existence in vaccination, but not to peanut bags being handed on airplanes?

APV,

If a study shows problems with vaccine safety, the study design and statistics MUST be flawed.
If the study shows vaccines are safe, no one cares what study design or statistics are used (except may be the Cochrane people).

Yet more lies. It was vaccine safety studies that found an increased risk of intussusception with the Rotashield vaccine, leading to its withdrawal. The whole cell pertussis vaccine was replaced by the acellular version due to safety concerns picked up by large scale studies, and in several countries (though not the US) the Urabe mumps vaccine was replaced with a strain that had fewer side effects. Vaccine safety studies and post-marketing surveillance work, and evidence of safety concerns is taken very seriously.

Apart from all the CDC/FDA problems I have pointed out, you have now added “horrible”, “execrable” study performed by the CDC, by people who do not “understand statistics”. That should surely add confidence to vaccine safety?

Hooker's study was not performed by the CDC, it was a grossly incompetent reanalysis of the data from a CDC study by a true believer in the vaccine-autism link.

For all these studies, statistics and fantastic medical advances, there’s one little question nobody in the medical community can answer …
Why can’t you safely open a packet of peanuts in an aircraft cabin today?

What a very stupid question.

I suppose the reason that you continue to insist that vaccines contain or contained peanut allergens, despite a complete lack of evidence for this, is that this is necessary for your 'vaccines cause food allergies' hypothesis to be true. This is a classic example of someone attempting to distort the evidence to fit their hypothesis, instead of fitting their hypothesis to the evidence.

J. Barthelow Classen, MD, immunologist and the author of the present study says “since 1999 the routine pediatric immunization schedule has increased by 80 vaccines” (that number counts each strain of antigenic virus or bacteria that have been included in the new inoculants). Classen believes that “the sum of the data described and reviewed in this paper supports a causal relationship”. From the perspective of the tens of thousands of parents (since the “age of autism” began just just a few decades ago) who know for certain that their previously happy, developmentally normal infants were sickened shortly after routine vaccinations, Dr Classen’s powerful scientific research cannot be discounted, even with the expected media blitz that is expected from Big Pharma, the AMA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the AAFP, the CDC, the WHO and the various trade organizations that profit so mightily from the vaccine industry.

This important article was published exactly one year ago this week, on February 19, 2014, in the Journal of Molecular and Genetic Medicine. The entire original article and the 42 supporting journal references are available at: http://www.vaccines.net/vaccine-induced-immune-overload.pdf.

– Gary G. Kohls, MD

Review of Vaccine Induced Immune Overload and the Resulting Epidemics of Type 1 Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome, Emphasis on Explaining the Recent Accelerations in the Risk of Pre-diabetes and other Immune Mediated Diseases

Author: J. Barthelow Classen MD, J Mol Genet Med 2014, S1:025

http://www.vaccines.net/vaccine-induced-immune-overload.pdf.

APV:

Then of course there are undeclared contaminants in Polysorbate 80 and sorbitol derived from food sources. Then you have the undeclared contents of the growth media.

Horse apples. This has been pointed out to you before.
As for your two studies, the first one involved "children who [all] had high levels of immunoglobulin antibody to milk protein". In other words, people with a contraindication. In addition, the reactions were traced back to a single lot. The other also involved already allergic patients.
Once again, you haven't proven that vaccines induce allergies.

“since 1999 the routine pediatric immunization schedule has increased by 80 vaccines” (that number counts each strain of antigenic virus or bacteria that have been included in the new inoculants)

I smell equine faeces.
GnkoBiloba's entire comment reads like a press release. And given that the human body can handle an antigen load equivalent to 10,000 vaccines in one day, I think Orac might want to give this article some insolence.

Julian Frost #1288,
"Once again, you haven’t proven that vaccines induce allergies."
The part you don't understand is that if there is enough allergen in the vaccine to cause an allergic reaction, there is more than enough to induce allergy. The fact that the vaccines caused anaphylaxis is proof that they can induce milk allergy in a healthy non-allergic person.

Julian Frost #1288,
"In other words, people with a contraindication."
1 in 15 children have food allergies. With food protein contaminated vaccines, vaccines are contraindicated for 1 in 15 children. Herd immunity goes out the window.
With the FDA/CDC refusing to clean up the contaminants, they are jeopardizing herd immunity.
May be the measles and whooping cough outbreaks are fueled by children who are unvaccinated due to contraindication to contaminated vaccines.
So why don't you demand that the FDA/CDC remove contaminants from vaccines?

Julian Frost #1289,

"human body can handle an antigen load equivalent to 10,000 vaccines in one day"
Even if that were true, natural antigens are not suspended in an aluminum gel designed to fool the immune system, with the depot effect and cytotoxic actions.
So the number of antigens themselves may not be the problem but they are injected along with food proteins, self antigens and adjuvants, the effects of which few want to look at carefully.

@APV - what are you going to do with yourself when the comment section here is closed?

I think you and MjD should write a book - I believe there is still space in the American Loon encyclopedia for you....

APV:

The part you don’t understand is that if there is enough allergen in the vaccine to cause an allergic reaction, there is more than enough to induce allergy.

Oh I understand your argument perfectly. I just don't think it's the case that vaccines are responsible for the supposed increase in allergies. Oh, and one of the recent links you posted above agreed.

1 in 15 children have food allergies. With food protein contaminated vaccines, vaccines are contraindicated for 1 in 15 children.

It doesn't mean that 1 child in 15 has an egg allergy, or a milk allergy. There are different allergies and many involve substances that were never in vaccines, like e.g. gluten.

APV writes

1 in 15 children have food allergies. With food protein contaminated vaccines, vaccines are contraindicated for 1 in 15 children

Dangerous allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare, actually.
So vaccines are not dangerous for 1 in 15 children.
There's a question of quantity, for one thing. The actual amount of allergens in vaccines is probably very small.
Also, just because an allergen affects you when you eat it, doesn't necessarily mean it will affect you via injection. Allergies can be local.
I have a delayed-reaction egg allergy, but I get the flu vaccine with trace amounts of egg in it, with no problems.

Laura #1295,
"There’s a question of quantity, for one thing. The actual amount of allergens in vaccines is probably very small."

Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about. The question of quantity. Why is there no specification or regulation of the quantity of allergens in vaccines? Why the vague "probably very small"? Where is the science in something that we inject into babies?

It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the "probably very small" quantity of allergen can be life-threatening. And as I have stated repeatedly, if it can cause anaphylaxis, there's more than enough allergen to induce allergy.

Why is there no specification or regulation of the quantity of allergens in vaccines?

You might have a point.
But have you looked into the answer?
That's what I would do if I was concerned about it. I would find out what the CDC or the vaccine manufacturer says in answer to that question.
Maybe there is indeed info about the amount of various food allergens in the vaccine available.
Maybe there are alternative vaccines that are free of the allergen.
Maybe there's a good reason why they can't make the vaccine without the allergen.
With major allergens like egg, it wouldn't be just probably a very small amount. It has to be a small amount of allergen in the vaccine. Otherwise there would be too many severe reactions to it.

if it can cause anaphylaxis, there’s more than enough allergen to induce allergy.

What's your proof of that? I doubt one vaccine would start an allergy. Any documented cases where that happened?
An injection of allergen might be more likely to induce tolerance than allergy. That's how allergy shots work.

"Why is there no specification or regulation of the quantity of allergens in vaccines?"

Where in this http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryI… do your read that you can put whatever you want in the vaccine as filler and not tell anyone about it.

It isn't that they add the egg protein in just to add it, but just like you can't be sure you got every last speck of peanut out of the machine before you make the next batch of food-like substance if any one product in the whole line has peanuts in it, you can't be certain that some bit of what grew the virus doesn't make it to the end product even after all the purification steps.

You don't have to add random cheap fillers to a vaccine to fill up the space, so no need to add random dried up bits of cheap food like you might in a capsule to fill up the space properly. I mean you just dilute it out to the right .concentration with sterile water or saline buffer as appropriate.

also found this : In the past, influenza vaccine manufacturers did not state the egg protein content of the vaccines. Now most manufacturers of these vaccines provide this information in the package inserts. http://www.uptodate.com/contents/influenza-vaccination-in-individuals-w…. I'm sure they'll show you the package insert if you want to see it should you ever go to be vaccinated and there is a table of concentrations available at the link.

APV/vinucube/Vinu Arumugham:

You wrote,

"So Avantor figured out after producing the product for 4 years (2007-2011) that they left peanut out of the datasheet? And then they coincidentally start marketing the product as “of non-peanut origin”? Need a lot of salt to swallow that …"

"they changed the product (from peanut origin to other sources). They THEREFORE updated the datasheet to reflect the change in the product."

"I have shown that versions of injectable grade Polysorbate 80 contain peanut protein."

You are lying.

I asked my contacts at Avantor, and they stated,

"The product was never made with peanuts."

and,

"Peanut was added because a customer wanted it called out and it is a common allergen. "

I look forward to your retraction. Which will never come, because you are extraordinarily dishonest and you have no integrity whatsoever.

Tell us what you will say to your children when they discover how much you lie. Remember, anyone searching for your name and "vaccines" will immediately find this thread and will discover how dishonest you are.

OccamsLaser #1299,

I pointed out that Avantor's datasheet carried the following statement. Posters here suggested, the product is allergen-free but the lawyers added the statement.

"Please be advised that the product is sourced from substances of vegetable (corn, palm, sunflower, or coconut)."

Now, you expect those same lawyers to admit that they used peanuts in their product?

"The products listed do not contain wheat, rye, oats, barley, spelt, malt, triticale, gluten, other grains, soybean, eggs, yeast, canola, dairy products, seafood products, peanuts, natural grape products, natural flavors, artificial flavors,
celery, lactose, sulfites, elemental sulfur, preservatives, MSG, disodium guanylate/inosinate, artificial sweeteners, phenylalanine, additives, colorants, dyes, or natural rubber (latex)."

They have numerous uncommon allergens listed above, but they conveniently left out a common allergen - peanut, until 2011.
And they waited for a customer to ask?

“Peanut was added because a customer wanted it called out and it is a common allergen. ”

And you believe that story?

Laura #1297,

"But have you looked into the answer?"
Yes, I did and posted it here. Pl. see #522.

"Maybe there are alternative vaccines that are free of the allergen."
My understanding is that all FDA approved vaccines have their package inserts available at fda.gov.
There are no allergen-free versions of vaccines.

"Otherwise there would be too many severe reactions to it."
There are and that's why they studied it here:

In 2009, up to 38.3 mcg/ml of egg protein:
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2809%2902305-7/fulltext
“Since the 1997-1998 influenza season, 51 lots of vaccine have been tested. The brands and lots with the lowest level of ovalbumin were chosen for vaccination of egg allergic patients to avoid adverse events. The concentration of ovalbumin in the same brand varied from year to year (e.g. Flumist®: 005-0.8 μg/ml; Flushied®, 6.90-38.30 μg/ml; Fluarix®, 0.025-0.31 μg/ml; Fluzone®, 0.30-8.05 μg/ml; Fluvirin®, <0.01-0.55 μg/ml)."

In 1967, 7.4 mcg/ml.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC377279/pdf/applmicro00114-0…

More proof that allergens in vaccines are unregulated.

"if it can cause anaphylaxis, there’s more than enough allergen to induce allergy.
What’s your proof of that? I doubt one vaccine would start an allergy. Any documented cases where that happened?"

DTaP followed by DTaP produced no anaphylaxis.
DTaP followed by MMR produced anaphylaxis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9949325

DTaP had 48-200mcg/ml of gelatin. Enough to sensitize (induce allergy) but no enough to elicit a reaction.
MMR had 10mg of gelatin. Enough to sensitize and elicit reactions.

In 1908, it was demonstrated that as little as 50ng of egg protein was needed to sensitize guinea pigs.
A 25mg dose was used to elicit a reaction.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30071840?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

"An injection of allergen might be more likely to induce tolerance than allergy. That’s how allergy shots work."
Pollen allergies are different from food allergies.
Allergy shots work for pollen allergy and similar "natural allergies".
One is not usually prescribed Epipen for pollen allergy, like they do for food allergies.
Our body has evolved to deal with pollen proteins. So pollen proteins are a nuisance but they are not life-threatening.

Food allergy is a man-made problem. Food proteins were not commonly injected into organisms during evolution.
Injecting food proteins is a man-made phenomenon. Allergy shots won't work. That is why you have other experimental therapies such as oral immunotherapy (OIT).
Food proteins naturally are expected to be broken down into harmless amino acids, by digestion before they come into contact with the immune system. Injections bypass this natural barrier and have created an artificial problem.

KayMarie #1298,

"do your read that you can put whatever you want in the vaccine as filler and not tell anyone about it."

The problem is the vaccine package insert lists Polysorbate 80 or sorbitol for example. They do not list the possible allergens they contain. These excipients are derived from food sources. As you rightly point out, at the end of the process, you cannot be sure that every last speck of contaminating protein was removed.

When you are making a product that you are going to inject into people, the logical step would then be to determine what level of food protein contamination is safe. Then create and enforce a specification to ensure product safety.
The FDA has failed to do that. There is no safe limit established nor enforced. That is why we have a food allergy epidemic.

"You don’t have to add random cheap fillers to a vaccine to fill up the space"
Yes, but they need to add excipients to stabilize and keep the viral proteins from degrading. The excipients can be contaminated with unknown type and quantity of food protein because there is no specification or regulation.

Even the excipient makers are surprised there is no regulation:

http://www.excipientfest.com/europe/pdf/EFE14%20June%2024,%20A1%20The%2…

Slide 6:
“How is excipient
manufacture regulated?
• To the surprise of many the
manufacture and supply of excipients
is unregulated by any agency
• European legislation puts the onus on
the user, the MA holder to ensure that
starting materials are of a ‘suitable’
standard”

APV:

“Peanut was added because a customer wanted it called out and it is a common allergen. ”

And you believe that story?

Yes, actually.

They have numerous uncommon allergens listed above, but they conveniently left out a common allergen – peanut, until 2011.

Has it ever occurred to you to demonstrate that anybody uses peanut oil to manufacture polysorbate 80 in the first place? I mean, it's plain that you're too determinedly lazy, dishonest,* or both to so much as figure out how oleic acid is obtained,** but have you ever wondered what that "non-animal" bit was doing there first?

* Your lone comment as "john doe" at MDC is duly noted.
** Or sorbitol; the immediately preceding "kosher tapioca" pratfall still cracks me up, now even more given that you failed to connect the dots between Croda's "Crillet HP 4" and
J.T. Baker's #4117.

Yes, but they need to add excipients to stabilize and keep the viral proteins from degrading.

No, dipshіt, "that" is not what polysorbate 80 is "for." Frankly, I thought Laura was simply ill-advisedly feeding your pathetic, dogged pleas for attention until you barfed up this bit of jaw-dropping idiocy as a result. Where are the "viral proteins" in DTaP? What does "lyophilized" mean? Have you ever made salad dressing?

"Food proteins were not commonly injected into organisms during evolution."

As I pointed out weeks ago, this is obviously untrue. Our ancestors, all the way back to prehumans, handled food even though their hands had open cuts. They cut themselves while preparing food. They ate even if their mouths had open sores. They got bitten by animals that had food residues on their teeth. They got stuck by thorns. If a few nanograms of food proteins under the skin routinely caused lethal allergies, neither we nor most of the animal population would exist.

Our ancestors, all the way back to prehumans, handled food even though their hands had open cuts.

Still about injection of stuff under the skin, anyone who had to walk through forest underbrush and meet some thorny plants in the process will have some inkling as to why our ancestors invented clothing, even under warm climates. There are some places you don't want to be stung.

APV,

Food allergy is a man-made problem. Food proteins were not commonly injected into organisms during evolution.

We've been through this before. You can't argue that pollen allergy has somehow evolved as a benefit to humans, any more than you can argue that fatal anaphylaxis due to a bee sting has. Our immune systems are immensely complex and sometimes develop glitches.

I don't see any evidence that food allergy is a man-made problem, especially since food allergies were reported long before any vaccines containing food proteins were injected, as we discussed what seems like a very long time ago somewhere above.

In fact I don't see any evidence that injecting proteins can cause food allergies at all. All the century-old evidence we discussed before used injected proteins to induce allergies that were also elicited by injection, either intraperitoneal or intravascular. I also note that these were all animal studies. Is there any evidence that injected food proteins can lead to food allergies in humans?

@APV
Maybe it works the opposite way. Maybe the tiny amounts of food allergen in vaccines, actually desensitize people a little bit to the allergen.
After all, allergy shots are injections of allergen that desensitize people. The allergy shot causes an immune reaction that ends up reducing the allergy.
There are various ways in which allergens contact the body. Some kinds of contact with allergen tend to create tolerance, some are sensitizing.
From what I've read, injecting allergen actually tends to create tolerance to the allergen.

APV/vinucube/Vnu Arumugham:

First, it is certainly true that you are an expert on lying, as you have been caught lying repeatedly here about such things as you claim EMD Millipore’s Polysorbate 80 has maize and wheat, about what Phuong Tang of Aventor emailed you about the presence of cococnut oil and palm oil in that company's Polsysorbate 80, and about your impersonating a medical student (you are actually an electronics engineer). So, you're a serial liar; that has been amply proven. Even your claim to be an electronics engineer seems suspect, given how unintelligent you are, and how you are unable to grasp even elementary logic.

Given your own deep-seated dishonesty, you naturally assume that others act similarly, so it is unsurprising that you therefore would claim that anyone who says anything that doesn't support your position (which is based on fabricated data, as has been shown) is lying -- just as you lie when attempting to provide evidence for your claims.

You now make the painfully embarrassing argument that Avantor made their Polysorbate 80 from peanuts prior to 2011, and they willfully concealed that fact by intentionally omitting peanuts from the list of sources for that product on their product information sheet. Of course, because you are both not very intelligent and very dishonest, and blinded by bias, you fail to recognize that your argument fails for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that Avantor does, in fact, list other ingredients from which their product is made, including palm oil and coconut oil. That listing provides the proof that you are simply wrong when you make the claim that Avantor lies about the sources for that product. Furthermore, if it were true that Avantor made their product from peanuts, but decided to lie about that, they would simply have had peanuts on the allergens-not-present list all along. Therefore, your reasoning that Avantor added peanuts to the allergens-not-present list after they stopped using peanuts as a source for the product fails completely.

And, of course, you have not presented a scintilla of direct evidence that Avantor's Polysorbate 80 was ever made from peanuts. Your entire argument boils down to the fact that Avantor has unambiguously stated that they never used peanuts, and that you do not believe them -- therefore, they used peanuts, according to your sadly paranoid dishonest view of the world.

According to you, there was a vanishingly low rate of food and pollen allergies prior to the use of vaccination, and now there is an epidemic-level rate -- but only among the vaccinated; the unvaccinated, according to you, still have a vanishingly low rate of food and polled allergies.

This should be almost trivial to prove. Yet, despite all your lie-ridden posts here and in other blogs, and your lengthy personal blog, you have never, ever presented a scintilla of evidence that this is true.

Instead of writing such cowardly utterances as. "And you believe that story?", go ahead and have some guts: State directly that Avantor is lying now, and that they secretly used peanuts to manufacture their Polysorbate 80 and concealed that fact.

I dare you.

Do you have the courage?

Uh-oh.

OccamsLaser #1310,

Polysorbate 80 Super Refined (injectable grade) datasheet:
http://askavantor.force.com/servletfileField?id=0BEG0000000TSXu
It is of non-peanut origin, but peanut is still NOT listed in the "do not contain" list.
Are they still waiting for a "customer who wants it called out"?

So they are unable to guarantee EVEN TODAY that their Polysorbate 80 Super Refined is free of peanut protein.

In engineering, you go by the datasheet.
Per the datasheet, Avantor is unable to guarantee that the product is free of peanut protein.
If their datasheet is wrong and has been for years, that raises questions about the company's quality control process.

Laura #1309,

Allergy shots are not a treatment method for food allergy.
As I wrote, pollen allergy is a "natural allergy" and allergy shots may work. They do not work for food allergy.

Charles Richet had the same idea. He thought if he injected sea anemone poison into dogs, they would develop tolerance to subsequent exposure (prophylaxis). But to his surprise, the dogs died on subsequent exposure. He was forced to coin the term anaphylaxis to describe his discovery.

We use his term today but we seem to have forgotten his discovery ... you CANNOT thoughtlessly inject proteins into mammals without harmful consequences.

Narad #1311,
Old news:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1414850
Old by about 104 years:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30073318?seq=14#page_scan_tab_contents

1) Instead of focusing on the root cause of sensitization (injections/vaccines), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) wrongly assumed that GI mucosa exposure causes sensitization (like Krebiozen did).
2) They recommended avoidance of allergens.
They now admit it made the problem worse because not only are kids being sensitized by injections/vaccines, they lost their opportunity to generate tolerance as well.
3) Now the AAP and this paper are backpedalling, to introduce allergens back in the diet to get the tolerance back.
4) And the great part is that they still won't look at the root cause od sensitization (injections/vaccines).

http://consumer.healthday.com/environmental-health-information-12/envir…

Study senior author Gideon Lack, also of King's College London, added, "This is further evidence for the dual-allergen-exposure theory, which suggests food allergies develop through exposure to allergens via the skin, likely through a disrupted skin barrier, whilst consumption of these food proteins early in life builds up tolerance in the body."

The same Gideon Lack who said "food allergies develop through exposure to allergens via the skin, likely through a disrupted skin barrier", used skin prick tests on kids in this latest study:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1414850

How many kids developed food allergy from those skin prick tests? Study results tainted by the skin prick tests?
No ethics concerns?

Disrupting the skin barrier with a vaccine needle and injecting allergens? Oh, those are perfectly safe as well? Talk about the tangled web of food allergy research ...

you CANNOT thoughtlessly inject proteins into mammals without harmful consequences

Well, I suppose that's something new.

Not like coming clean about lying about being a medical student, but still.

APV , understand that you can't give up on your crackpot theory.YYou have clearly invested too much of your identity to examine email it rationally and let it go. Unfortunately for your claims, I and many other immunologists regularly inject proteins into mice and induce tolerance. I can, with the right dosing schedule, even inject many different proteins in alum and still get tolerance. It isn't hard, and it isn't unknown how. Your astonishing ignorance, oversimplification, and brain-rotting repetition do not make it true that "you cannot I just protein without causing allergy". Congratulations on failing the Turing test.

APV:
It is of non-peanut origin, but peanut is still NOT listed in the “do not contain” list.
Are they still waiting for a “customer who wants it called out”?

So they are unable to guarantee EVEN TODAY that their Polysorbate 80 Super Refined is free of peanut protein.
This has been explained to you before. Peanuts were never used to make Polysorbate 80.

Allergy shots are not a treatment method for food allergy.

False. From http://www.food-allergy.org/page2.html

The second kind of immunotherapy for food allergies is low dose immunotherapy. The first treatment of this type was enzyme potentiated desensitization (EPD) which was developed in England over 40 years ago and has been used around the world. It was used in the United States for about 10 years as part of a study conducted under an Investigational Review Board. An EPD shot contains a very minute amount of many allergens plus an enzyme which naturally occurs in the human body, beta-glucuronidase.

The rest of your commentary is the usual vague and unsupported rubbish you've spouted before.

Oh, what I would give for an edit feature that let me correct those lovely changes my phone inserted.

For the record folks, with structured dosing it is actually easier to induce tolerance with injected antigen than orally. Not surprising since you can control costimulation at an injection site but not in the GI tract.
Not surprisingly, APV's assertion is exactly opposite of common immunological knowledge & current textbooks.

The same Gideon Lack who said “food allergies develop through exposure to allergens via the skin, likely through a disrupted skin barrier”

Is there any more takeaway here than that you're certain that I'll suffer anaphylaxis if I try to eat a housecat? I'm having trouble sorting out the implications.

So they are unable to guarantee EVEN TODAY that their Polysorbate 80 Super Refined is free of peanut protein.

What about "kosher tapioca"? Is it only allergenic during Pesach?

J.W.Chaplin,

http://www.webmd.com/allergies/guide/allergy-shots?page=2#1

"Do Allergy Shots Work for All Allergies?
A lot depends on how many things you are allergic to and how severe your symptoms are. Generally, allergy shots work for allergies to bee stings, pollen, dust mites, mold, and pet dander. There’s no proof that they work for food, drug, or latex allergies."

So, pollen and other "natural allergies" are different from food, drug and latex allergies which are primarily man-made.

"I can, with the right dosing schedule, even inject many different proteins in alum and still get tolerance."

With vaccines/injections, neither the allergen dose nor the schedule is controlled.

It is obvious that NOT EVERYONE who gets injected with egg contaminated flu vaccine develops egg allergy. We are talking about higher probability of developing food allergy when injections/vaccines are contaminated with food proteins.

If you think the Richet allergy model is a "crackpot theory", could you please tell us what is causing the food allergy epidemic?

Julian Frost #1318,

Why would Avantor market their Polysorbate 80 as specifically non-peanut origin? Why not non-soy origin or non-yeast origin?
It would only make sense to differentiate your product as non-peanut origin, if either your own similar product or a competitor's product is of peanut origin.

If using peanuts to make Polysorbate 80 is so alien, then marketing Polysorbate 80 as non-peanut origin is like marketing potato fries as wood-free.

No APV, YOU are the one taking 100 year old incomplete data and cherry-picked sound bites to misrepresent and distort a sand grain of truth into a Everest-sized mountain of B.S. Your "hypothesis" is in direct contradiction to observed facts and trends. You have shown an impressive degree of willful ignorance and more single-minded focus than most cranks, but that doesn't make you right it just makes you a broken record.

Narad #1321,

Dr. Lack showed in a study that household peanut dust was causing peanut allergy through broken skin exposure (eczema).
But, Dr. Lack routinely uses skin prick allergen testing in his studies (allergen exposure through broken skin). So, based on his own results, he is inducing allergies in kids while performing his studies.
And logically, if allergen exposure through broken skin can induce allergy, injecting food allergens should induce allergy efficiently as well ...

For the record APV, Richet's work was sound but woefully incomplete as anyone would expect from studies that are 100 years old. Your "theory" (barely a hypothesis really) is the crackpot one.

It is obvious that NOT EVERYONE who gets injected with egg contaminated flu vaccine develops egg allergy.

Comment 90:

Charles Richet demonstrated a 100 years ago that any protein injected into the body will result in sensitization. Subsequent exposure to the same protein will cause anaphylaxis.

Comment 1313:

you CANNOT thoughtlessly [sic] inject proteins into mammals without harmful consequences.

How's imaginary med school going, Vinu Arumugham?

By this logic, they CLEARLY changed the formulation of Jell-o when they put "fat-free!" on the label, to distinguish it from all those other nasty fat-filled brands of gelatin. Oh, wait.

Hilariously, AoA's resident HIV/AIDS denialist opines as follows:

Richet was the vice president of the French Eugenics Society...

Emma Crew #1327,

A customer buying Jell-O may compare it to say yogurt. He might choose Jell-O because it is labeled fat-free. A company that wants injectable grade Polysorbate 80 is not comparing it with peanut butter as an alternative.

APV:

Why would Avantor market their Polysorbate 80 as specifically non-peanut origin? Why not non-soy origin or non-yeast origin?

Because vegetable oils are used to make it, not yeast or soy.

It would only make sense to differentiate your product as non-peanut origin, if either your own similar product or a competitor’s product is of peanut origin.

As was pointed out in the comments above, a brand of maple syrup was marketed as fat-free. This is despite the fact that no brand of maple syrup has ever has fat in it. Also pointed out was the fact that a brand of peanut butter was marketed as cholesterol-free, and peanut butter contains no cholesterol. It was simple marketing.

It would only make sense to differentiate your product as non-peanut origin, if either your own similar product or a competitor’s product is of peanut origin.

See above comment on fat-free maple syrup and cholesterol-free peanut butter.

If using peanuts to make Polysorbate 80 is so alien, then marketing Polysorbate 80 as non-peanut origin is like marketing potato fries as wood-free.
Again, see above.

If you think the Richet allergy model is a “crackpot theory”, could you please tell us what is causing the food allergy epidemic?

Assumes facts not in evidence (allergy epidemic).

And logically, if allergen exposure through broken skin can induce allergy, injecting food allergens should induce allergy efficiently as well.

As was also pointed out above, cavemen were bitten, scratched and gored by animals, ate food when they had mouth sores and cut themselves while preparing food. I have accidentally cut myself when preparing food and cleaning up. This would appear to contradict your sensitisation hypothesis.

In a case like that, I'd think they'd be much more likely to buy fat-free yogurt, you know?

The point is that it doesn't take a marketing genius to notice that if you label your brand as "unpleasant ingredient free!" it creates a perception that the competitor's brand JUST MIGHT include unpleasant ingredient (even if no brand ever has). In this case, there are plenty of folks going around on the Internet saying OMG PEANUTS IN VACCINES, it would make sense that companies manufacturing vaccine components would be glad to slap on "yeah, no peanuts here." It is utterly commonplace to call out a lack of substances people are afraid of, even if they have nothing to do with your product.

A customer buying Jell-O may compare it to say yogurt.

*blink*

He might choose Jell-O because it is labeled fat-free.

Yes, when I go to the store looking for fat-free yogurt and they're out, the first thing that springs to mind instead is not 2% milkfat, but refrigerated Jell-O.

A company that wants injectable grade Polysorbate 80 is not comparing it with peanut butter as an alternative.

The irony that is utterly lost on you, Vinu Arumugham, fake med student, is that you have all along failed to demonstrate that the dumb shred that you have been reduced to clinging to has any bearing on the actual vaccine supply.

This doesn't seem to be the case (redirect to PDF).

I'm not sure APV understands why the concepts of truth and falsehood are important. He seems to build his arguments based on how convincing they sound, rather than evidence and logic.

@APV

Allergy shots are not a treatment method for food allergy.

I know allergy shots aren't used for food allergy.
But what makes you think allergy shots don't work for food allergy?
The reason allergy shots aren't used for food allergy is that people have too many severe reactions to the shots.
What I was saying is that injections of tiny amounts of food protein may well have a desensitizing effect.

As I wrote, pollen allergy is a “natural allergy” and allergy shots may work. They do not work for food allergy.

What do you mean by a "natural allergy"? How is a food allergy "unnatural"?
Food proteins are proteins, pollen proteins are proteins ... Inhaled proteins go down your GI tract to some extent too, and can cause reactions when you eat them, if you're severely allergic. This happens to me.
For example, unfiltered honey has a lot of pollen in it and makes me sick if I eat it. Filtered honey is OK.

We are talking about higher probability of developing food allergy when injections/vaccines are contaminated with food proteins.

But I have seen no proof of this higher probability from you.
The tiny amounts of food allergen in vaccines might actually have a (tiny) desensitizing effect.
I have many delayed-reaction food allergies, and one frustrating thing about it is that I suspect allergy shots would work for them, AND be safe. With delayed-reaction food allergies, the IgE antibodies in the blood aren't elevated as they are in "classical" food allergies, so I doubt there would be a risk of severe reactions to allergy shots.
There's a "basophil activation test", a diagnostic blood test that's been tried in research on these kinds of food allergies. So basophils in the blood might be activated by allergy shots with the food allergen.
I have been trying (with the help of my allergists) to desensitize myself orally to the delayed-reaction food allergies, by taking allergy medications before eating a tiny amount of the food - a few milligrams with most foods. I've built up tolerance somewhat, but haven't yet been able to reintroduce any foods in normal quantities.

@APV
If vaccines were actually causing allergies to the food proteins present in tiny amounts in vaccines, we should see an increase in allergies to those foods among people receiving the vaccines.
Do you have any evidence that has happened?
You cited a 1988 study that showed an increase in IgE antibodies to egg a few weeks after receiving a flu vaccine.
Their bodies generated an immune response to the egg protein in the flu vaccine.
But, that study did not show that those people developed an egg allergy because of the flu vaccine. So far as I can tell, they continued to be able to eat eggs. If they had developed an egg allergy, the authors would probably have mentioned it!

@J. W. Camplin
I have a question, perhaps you have a guess as to the answer, being an immunologist.
I get allergy shots, and I get a hazy feeling from the shots. Do you know what might be causing this? The hazy feeling comes on starting maybe 15 minutes after getting the shot.

It is utterly commonplace to call out a lack of substances people are afraid of, even if they have nothing to do with your product.

Absolutely. It's a bit like labeling a bottle of hard apple cider "gluten free". I'm not aware of any apple cider that *isn't* gluten free, but they put the label on there anyway since it's no skin off their backs and might possibly convince a few more people to try it.

Yes that marketing habit has been going on for decades. Drives me nuts when something that never had X in it comes out as X free.

Thanks APV, for my next business "wood free fries". As long as I can convince people that there's something wrong with wood (sometimes treated with arsenic don't ya know...) we can fabricate a market. Happens all the time. Listerine fabricated the halitosis market, the whole "gluten-free" thing has become a marketing scam, etc. I've seen table salt listed as gluten free, go to Whole Foods and take a look. Tell me that wheat, barley, or rye were used in salt production prior to the labeling - go on. Idiot.

Dear Laura, first - good catch. Yes, the implication of our current understanding of reactivity/tolerance is that there'd be just as much chance, if not more, to desensitize as to sensitize from alleged trace allergens in vaccines. Second, if you have DTH (Delayed Type Hypersensitivity) variant allergies they are not IgE or histamine mediated. Blocking with standard allergy medications won't do much. DTH allergies are T cell mediated and drive a cytokine storm, usually resulting in low blood pressure, slightly elevated temperature, and impaired cognition. Anti-inflammatories (even NSAIDS) will help limit this but not block it, drink lots of water, keep cool (literally), and wait for it to pass. Unfortunately, not much else to do for DTH reactivity. Sorry.

Second, if you have DTH (Delayed Type Hypersensitivity) variant allergies they are not IgE or histamine mediated. Blocking with standard allergy medications won’t do much. DTH allergies are T cell mediated and drive a cytokine storm, usually resulting in low blood pressure, slightly elevated temperature, and impaired cognition.

I'm not sure if mine would be called delayed - the foggy feeling starts about half an hour after eating the food, and comes on fully about 4-5 hours later. I've read that cell-mediated reactions are generally more delayed, like a day or so.
Allergy meds do help decrease the reaction. I take oral cromolyn, loratadine and Singulair before eating these small amounts of food. The cromolyn seems to be the most helpful. Allergists have suggested cromolyn to me for the food reactions.
From what I've read, there are food allergies that cause skin problems that are definitely cell-mediated (possibly could be diagnosed by an atopy patch test).
But for the kind of food hypersensitivities that I have, the mechanism is unknown (at least the last I read). I read some articles by Dr. Antonio Carroccio on non-celiac gluten sensitivity, which is often associated with multiple food hypersensitivities in his experience. I wasn't sure whether he was talking about the same kind of reactions that I have. So I emailed him outlining the symptoms, minimum amount to cause a reaction, medications that helped, and asked him if the hypersensitivities he described were similar. He kindly replied and said they were.
I also asked him whether these food hypersensitivities might be IgE-mediated but local to the GI tract (gut, mouth perhaps). He had described them as not Ige-mediated in his articles, but I didn't see how he knew that. He said they were investigating the possibility of a localized IgE-mediated reaction as well.
I've read a lot of research articles on this subject. It seems people can have local allergies in the gut, for example see Local allergic reaction in foodhypersensitive adults despite a lack of systemic food-specific IgE
He said in his papers that they had found mucosal eosinophil infiltration in the duodenum and colon in NCGS patients (when it was from an immune reaction).
I found out recently that for inhalants, the late-phase allergic reaction is independently initiated in some people. It's not just an "allergic cascade", in other words - it's not all started when IgE binds to mast cells. Apparently IgE/antigen complexes can bind to dendritic cells. So there could be stuff going on that looks cell-mediated from the symptoms, but is still IgE-mediated.
So, I've wondered if there's something like that with IgE complexes going on with my delayed-reaction food allergies. I've wondered if they are similar to inhalant allergies, with an early phase and a late phase, but the early phase is mild and the late phase is intense.
Anyway - I was wondering what might cause a hazy feeling after allergy shots? I have very severe allergic reactions to inhalants that make me mentally foggy for days, and I've thought that might be related to the haziness after allergy shots. Most people don't get hazy after allergy shots and most people don't have inhalant allergic reactions that last for days, so I think those two things might be connected. I take loratadine before allergy shots and I think it makes the haziness somewhat less.

Actually rather than IgE/antigen complexes binding to dendritic cells, it seems the IgE binding to the FceR1 receptor on dendritic cells captures antigen, presenting it to T cells and generating a reaction from there.
From High-Affinity IgE Receptors on Dendritic Cells Exacerbate Th2-Dependent Inflammation:

In the presence of IgE and allergen, Fc«RI+ DCs instructed naive T cells to differentiate into Th2 cells in vitro and boosted allergen-specific Th2 responses and Th2-dependent eosinophilia at the site of allergen exposure in vivo. Thus, Fc«RI on DCs drives the cascade of pathogenic reactions linking the initial allergen capture by IgE with subsequent Th2-dominated T cell responses and the development of late-phase allergic tissue inflammation.

This is for inhalant allergies.
From Mechanisms of immunotherapy: IgG revisited:

IgE bound to the high-affinity IgE receptor (FceRI) or the low-affinity IgE receptor (FceRII, CD23) on antigen-presenting cells can efficiently capture and focus the antigen, such that very low concentrations of antigen are able to stimulate responding T cells maximally. After binding of antigen the complex is internalized, processed and then presented on the surface in association with the major histocompatibility complex II (MHCII) for presentation to T cells.

So yes, it does involve T cells.
Again talking about inhalant allergies, but perhaps something similar might be happening with food hypersensitivities.

@APV
Epicutaneous exposure to food proteins - skin contact - can cause allergy to those proteins when eaten. There are various papers on that (google epicutaneous sensitization food allergy).
But that's different from exposure by subcutaneous or intramuscular injection, as occurs with allergy shots or vaccines. It doesn't imply that traces of food protein in vaccines tend to cause sensitization.

J.W.Chaplin #1342,

"Yes, the implication of our current understanding of reactivity/tolerance is that there’d be just as much chance, if not more, to desensitize as to sensitize from alleged trace allergens in vaccines."

1. Vaccines contain allergens (fact, not alleged).
2. So you admit that current understanding is there is a chance of sensitization by allergens in vaccines.
3. We have a raging food allergy epidemic. And no one wants to pull their head out of the sand and investigate vaccines/injections as a possible contributor?
4. Why no regulation of allergen content in vaccines?

Again, if you think vaccines/injections are not the cause, could you please tell us what is causing the food allergy epidemic?

APV:

We have a raging food allergy epidemic.

Proof needed that the rate of food allergies has exploded over the last century.

And no one wants to pull their head out of the sand and investigate vaccines/injections as a possible contributor?

What a load of horse apples. You yourself posted studies which you (incorrectly) believed supported your hypothesis. Why you now turn around and state that nobody wishes to investigate it is bewildering.

Again, if you think vaccines/injections are not the cause, could you please tell us what is causing the food allergy epidemic?

Once again, it is not up to us to prove that your hypothesis is wrong, it is up to you to prove it is right. But since you are so granite skulled...

We do know what causes food allergies: exposure to foods combined with a genetic susceptibility and other factors.

APV/vinucube/Vinu Arumugham -

Again, you've established that you're a deeply dishonest person who lies constantly. You have not even denied that you've lied repeatedly, much less attempted a defense of your lies. Let's keep that in mind.

You lied about what a Polysorbate 80 datasheet said, you lied about what you were told by a representative of Avantor about the composition of their Polysorbate 80 product, you lied about being a medical student, and so on.

Everyone who reads this thread -- your children and people with an interest in the subject of any possible vaccine-allergy link -- will discover that you are terribly dishonest, and you can't be trusted at all to tell the truth about anything.

You are also a coward. You've indicated that if you were (really) a medical researcher, you would be so afraid of the repercussions that you would refuse to participate in a study that might show a link between vaccines and allergies. How sad.

You have also insinuated that Avantor made their Polysorbate 80 from peanuts while lying and declaring that they did not. However, because you're a coward, you don't have the guts to make a direct accusation. Coward.

But here's the central point that destroys your position: You have proposed a hypothesis (for which you have not posted any honest supporting evidence) to explain a phenomenon. However, you have not shown that the phenomenon even exists.

The phenomenon that you are attempting to explain is the existence of a food allergy epidemic ONLY AMONG VACCINATED CHILDREN.

Before an explanation need be considered to explain a phenomenon, the phenomenon needs to be shown to be in evidence. You have not even provided evidence of a correlation between vaccination status and allergies; therefore, you do not even have a basis to assert a causal linkage for such a correlation, much less to propose a specific mechanism to explain any such causal linkage.

Dishonest, cowardly, and wrong. Did I miss anything?

Peanut oil in Vitamin K shots.

Remington: The Science and Practice of Pharmacy
edited by David B. Troy, Paul Beringer
pg. 803 says, corn, cottonseed, peanut and sesame oil are most commonly used as a vehicle in Vitamin K injection formulations.
Every newborn is injected with it.

https://books.google.com/books?id=NFGSSSbaWjwC&pg=PA803&dq=Remington:++…

Sesame Seed Allergy: A Growing Problem?
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=52926

Peanut oil in Vitamin K shots.

Remington: The Science and Practice of Pharmacy
edited by David B. Troy, Paul Beringer
pg. 803 says, corn, cottonseed, peanut and sesame oil are most commonly used as a vehicle in Vitamin K injection formulations.
Every newborn is injected with it.

Vinu, the stench of your stupid, desperate attention-seeking reminds me of one time when I wound up with an nth-hand laptop that gave off "Axe Body Spray" fumes for a good four years.

Explain, in your own words, what "polyoxyethylated fatty acid derivative" means and how one does that.

Julian Frost #1347,

"We do know what causes food allergies: exposure to foods combined with a genetic susceptibility and other factors."

Exposure to foods through vaccine/injection contamination?

Redirecting to things that we know actually contain(ed) peanut oil, did anything definitive ever come of that "infant eczema cream compounded with peanut oil may be contributing to the incidence of peanut allergy" thing what, a decade ago? On the face of it it sure seems more likely than vaccines.

Emma Crew #1352,

“infant eczema cream compounded with peanut oil may be contributing to the incidence of peanut allergy”

Eczema creams, skin prick allergy tests, vaccines/injections can all be contributors.

Narad #1350,

Perhaps you are referring to this version of Vitamin K:
http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/archives/fdaDrugInfo.cfm?archiveid…

Remington is referring to a version that uses peanut/sesame oil in the Vitamin K shot.

J.W.Chaplin #1342,

"Yes, the implication of our current understanding of reactivity/tolerance is that there’d be just as much chance, if not more, to desensitize as to sensitize from alleged trace allergens in vaccines."

If allergen proteins in vaccines caused desensitization/tolerance/unresponsiveness, then the viral proteins in the vaccines would do the same. The reason vaccines work is because you are sensitized to the viral proteins. So if your statement were true, vaccines would not work.

Smith-Norowitz TA, Wong D, Kusonruksa M, Norowitz KB, Joks R, Durkin HG, Bluth MH. Long Term Persistence of IgE Anti-Influenza Virus Antibodies in Pediatric and Adult Serum Post Vaccination with Influenza Virus Vaccine. Int J Med Sci 2011; 8(3):239-244. doi:10.7150/ijms.8.239. Available from http://www.medsci.org/v08p0239.htm

Julian Frost #1347,

"Proof needed that the rate of food allergies has exploded over the last century."

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db10.htm

"You yourself posted studies which you (incorrectly) believed supported your hypothesis. Why you now turn around and state that nobody wishes to investigate it is bewildering."

Yes, I have pointed to the studies showing food contaminants in vaccines/injections induce food allergies. Some researchers have even called for the removal of food contaminants. Why no action? Either remove food contaminants from vaccines/injections or if the CDC/FDA think more studies are needed, then they should perform them. They just sit there and warm their seats as more children are injured by contaminated vaccines/injections.

Laura #1338,

"If vaccines were actually causing allergies to the food proteins present in tiny amounts in vaccines, we should see an increase in allergies to those foods among people receiving the vaccines.
Do you have any evidence that has happened?"

Of course we see that. Vaccines definitely contain casein and ovalbumin. We have definitely seen an increase in egg and milk allergies. Vitamin K shots can contain peanut/sesame oil and we have seen an increase in peanut/sesame allergies.

"You cited a 1988 study that showed an increase in IgE antibodies to egg a few weeks after receiving a flu vaccine.
Their bodies generated an immune response to the egg protein in the flu vaccine."

The study was performed because of a rise in egg allergies in Japanese children after they began mandatory influenza vaccination. As you have said, their bodies generated an immune response to the egg proteins contaminating the influenza vaccine. If vaccinated repeatedly, they will develop egg allergies.

Further, today we have an increase in c-section births which primes for allergy development. We have influenza shot administered with up to 4 other vaccines in one sitting as happened to my son. So the food protein contaminant immunogenicity is enhanced by the adjuvant effects of aluminum salts and pertussis toxin in the other vaccines.
So our children develop more severe allergies.

A reliable method of inducing egg allergy in rats?
Use pertussis vaccine with alum along with ovalbumin.
The human equivalent of getting a DTaP shot (which contains aluminum as an adjuvant) simultaneously administered with a flu shot.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22342543

Laura #1337,

"The reason allergy shots aren’t used for food allergy is that people have too many severe reactions to the shots."

Exactly. The body has evolved to treat them differently.

"What do you mean by a “natural allergy”? How is a food allergy “unnatural”?"

Pollen has been commonly injected (by insect bites) into mammals and inhaled for as long as they have existed.
Our bodies have learned that pollen proteins are harmless. Our bodies still react but the only result is a pollen allergy nuisance but not a life-threatening overreaction.

Food allergens were never COMMONLY injected. So there was no chance to evolve and treat them as harmless. Injected food allergens are treated as if they are injected viruses.

J.W.Chaplin #1317,

"crackpot theory"

Dr. Polly Matzinger NIH/NIAID helped develop the danger model of the immune system.

I asked her about the Richet model and you can see her response here:
https://list.nih.gov/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind1305&L=immuni-l&F=&S=&P=37286

Perhaps you are referring to this version of Vitamin K

You mean the one that is actually in use?

Say goodnight, Vinu.

At least this monstrosity will go away on the 5th.

Once again APV, you are straight up lying.

Yes, I have pointed to the studies showing food contaminants in vaccines/injections induce food allergies.

No, you pointed to studies that you assumed supported you. However at least one of the studies said:

In conclusion, vaccination programs do not explain the increasing prevalence of allergic diseases, but individual children may uncommonly develop an allergic reaction to a vaccine.

Your comments here are FIFUSOD (Functionally indistinguishable from utter stupidity or dishonesty).

Since the discussion seems to be about allergies, why not blame the dishwasher?

Maybe that's why I developed eczema when I got older after growing up washing all the dishes by hand.

But then I had jobs where I washed LOTS of dishes by hand.

So, maybe it's something else entirely.

But, that's the way science often works, unlike APV's fantasies.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/02/23/387553285/kids-allergies-and…

Julian Frost #1362,

"In conclusion, vaccination programs do not explain the increasing prevalence of allergic diseases, but individual children may uncommonly develop an allergic reaction to a vaccine."

That quote comes from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11846867

That paper compares apples to oranges to come to its conclusion.
"In murine models, pertussis toxin is an effective adjuvant for IgE formation against simultaneously administered antigens. In children, however, sensitization to unrelated antigens or development of allergic diseases do not seem to be augmented."

"simultaneously administered antigens" (apples) in murine models are being compared to "unrelated antigens" (oranges) in children.

We are talking about induction of food allergies caused by simultaneous administration of antigens (vaccine antigens and food antigens).

We are NOT talking about sensitization to unrelated antigens (such as pollen) due to vaccines.

Narad #1361,

"You mean the one that is actually in use?"

No, I mean the one with peanut/sesame oil which caused all the food allergies and has been quietly swept under the rug because too many people are asking tough questions ?

"Tough questions?"

All is see if someone who has been shown to lie consistently on a single thread on this blog.....you seem to have a bit of self-importance, don't you?

No, I mean the one with peanut/sesame oil which caused all the food allergies and has been quietly swept under the rug because too many people are asking tough questions ?

Great, you can't even figure out answers to your own comments. I suppose these things happen when no thoughts go into the latter in the first place.

In happier news, Wordpress seems to expire based on days, so chickenshіt Vinu Arumugham, random Cisco grunt, who has had ages to explain why he is lying about being a medical student over at Medscape, is going to have to find someplace else to go after March 3.

^ Oh, right, Wοrdpress also sleazily and silently changes capitalization in comment text to butter its lingam logo.

Sorry, asshοles, there are ways around that.

No, I mean the one with peanut/sesame oil which caused all the food allergies and has been quietly swept under the rug because too many people are asking tough questions ?

And where is your proof that such exists?
Oh right, you haven't any.
The "Moon Landing is a hoax" conspiracy theorists have nothing on you.

@APV

If allergen proteins in vaccines caused desensitization/tolerance/unresponsiveness, then the viral proteins in the vaccines would do the same. The reason vaccines work is because you are sensitized to the viral proteins. So if your statement were true, vaccines would not work.

Oh for crying out loud.
Do you have any idea how desensitization works? No, you don't.
It works by injecting the allergen, up to the point the body will react to it by generating normal antibodies (IgG and their kin) instead of the allergy-related IgE.

In shorter words, a working vaccine will trigger a normal response from the immune system. An injection designed to desensitize from an allergen will trigger a normal response. Hence, the two are perfectly compatible.
Exposition to an allergen will trigger an abnormal response. One is not like the other.

Speaking of avoiding/reducing allergy by increasing exposure, an article showed up this week-end on the topic. Apparently, feeding peanut to babies decrease their risk of becoming allergic.

Helianthus #1370,

"Speaking of avoiding/reducing allergy by increasing exposure, an article showed up this week-end on the topic."

Pl. see #1315.

Vaccines produce IgE and IgG to viral/bacterial proteins.
And IgE to viral proteins is part of the reason vaccines work.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3083.2005.01710.x/pdf

http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/188/1_MeetingAbstr…

Smith-Norowitz TA, Wong D, Kusonruksa M, Norowitz KB, Joks R, Durkin HG, Bluth MH. Long Term Persistence of IgE Anti-Influenza Virus Antibodies in Pediatric and Adult Serum Post Vaccination with Influenza Virus Vaccine. Int J Med Sci 2011; 8(3):239-244. doi:10.7150/ijms.8.239. Available from http://www.medsci.org/v08p0239.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/830756

"An injection designed to desensitize from an allergen will trigger a normal response. "

Exactly. Contaminant proteins in vaccines are not "designed to desensitize" by definition. Hence they sensitize and induce allergy.

So because "contaminant proteins" (which you have failed to show exist in sufficient quantities to induce allergies) are not "designed to desensitize", they ipso facto:
1) do not desensitize, and;
2) in fact, sensitize?
Is that what you're postulating?
If so, all I can say is "logic fail".